The Sun. — London, England, 1852-12-15 00:00:00

-------- RENTA L ' g Prices s day dono ~...---------- pad BUSI" 'l' y ap' 11i i 7 0 3,t H i :, rsi° SErj , p s N.V.; s l a tts oe ro_t s j . g ` to tine , e licte' Ne° SERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS—(irESTERDAY.) (Continued from our Third Edition of last evening.) eS MO NTEAGLE said that they were not now ,er e e nag for th e f i rst time into a course of peril, but they - severing t iiti Pe evenng in a co urse o f grea t danger by substi -1%11114,the principle of di rec t f or th a t o f indirect taxation. b a 'ale friend th e P ostmaster-General would yemein r that this was not the first time that he had raised his , t h protest t o t hi s pr i nciple. He did not say that 2 f e l " e sh ould be n o di rect taxat i on, b ut w h ere a revenue B v A 2 ,-; °° ° ,0 001. h a d t o b e ra i se d annua ll y, an d w h ere t '" 0 ,0001. of that was not subject to reduction in any th, l3 ,, e ',he did consider that indirect taxation would be B ir ' 4l s' Means to accomplish it without ruinously pres ttge upon the industrious classes. He was not an advo a:gaituit direct taxation, but against the entire sub- Pert ation of direct for indirect taxation. When the pro it b Y and incom e tax was proposed iu 1842, he supported itte e n ea ai ns: he thought it was justified by the circumstances tie s • ne, upon its proposal. By a combination of par .ut the other house last session, it was agreed that th e t s,eenie tax should be voted for one year only, with meloialstinet pledge from the Government that the e o subject should be fully gone into by a select I,oa,4linittee. Was the direct tax, now proposed to be to rp e h Per petual, call e d f or ? Th e G overnmen t was about ? IthVal the m a lt tax b y one - half. At whose bidding . orfit u not been demanded by the petitions of the people, the earnestness on the part of any one. It, as . well 1/41:11hstitution of a direct tax, were the mere gratuitous eaDZ the Government. If ever there was a question + tif e — te of being reasoned to demonstration it was that eillilji,resent Government were making a sacrifice of two It aea ls a nd a half of revenue under circumstances which le. Yield them no corresponding return. The pro kiedi co ntained in th e b u d ge t wou ld neither benefit th e nor the l ower c l asses . Th e G overnmen t pro klie4" °llly to substitute direct for indirect . taxation,. ts kiteta s ubstitute for a direct tax, temporary in ea i ri Op i „ r ,e, one that would be permanent. If the noble . h 'r ea ,7tc , had a personal enemy, he could not wish him a B 'll. - j' r evil than the carrying of the whole of his ra t ea- - Pl yi ' h alld being represented in consequence in every ax d IvEL,"eg,house as the author of the new property an 'tx, and as a member of a Government which had itwn-12,500;000/. in an act of kindness to a class which ie 2 , 4 not b ene fi t. Th e no b le lord conclu d e d b y mov tVe'following Lue returns :—Detailed accounts showing krst and net anaounts received of the revenue of Excise, ee ti ; 118 : and Taxes during each of the last ten years ; ac tea "840 wing the amount applied during each of the last Sl,Z!ars in reduction of the National Debt ;acco e u ao n i t i of th i4 g the amount advanced and repaid during ,4;llast ten years by the Commissioners for Public k a t— , l ; aecount showing the state of the national debt ti sl 'rob up to Janua 1852, distinguishing permanent terminable debt i r ' account showing the several du -I,iR 4 1 tax • t es imposed and repealed during each of the Ileeob 4 Y e ars, showing the actual or estimated amount ti; a nd distinguishing the duration of such taxes, Th e 't temporary or permanent. eot tarl of DERBY considered it a very inconveni ee?;l4'se, in a mere motion for papers, to which ma V e Cti would be offered, for any noble lord to avail tee b ' 4 oi the opportunity to enter into a these dicussinn o . f tio h - 'res at present not even yet under onsidera h i4 0 , 6 5 f the other house. It would have been amuc aeu7enient plan if the noble lord had proceeded . by the r ~ ili h t iat to have condemned, by way of anticipation, " :4 4 - t °le course of policy which the Government pro iitio Pursue, orhadwaited till the substantive pro e before their lordships for consideration. therefore, that his noble friend would ,. n.?t wi der ' q e as treating him with any disrespect liozietieet state of the house (there were about half a h , in tY rke inn Present) he declined to enter into an elabo n'tlussion of the consequences of the financial po- !tae lt - ,•' tin Governme*. He declined to enter into the Ittin'?naf the extension of direct taxation, or how far th e tr, g , it be considered desirable to rest the revenue of I t leati,; lll trY upon di rec t or indirect taxation. The whole !act i t had been admitted to be merely one of degree, : e eo Z a S not denied that direct taxation must be had . teat to, in order to make up the deficiency of indi e-ti°ll ; and the only question, therefore, was ker„,.-Xtexat to which direct taxation should be NO 2l , and the proportion which it should bear - hW o taxatio n of the country. There were but the ,ckles in which the large amount of the revenue of bs ec) tl ie tY could b e raised—by direct taxation affect iffeCtin ' r gest possible portion of the community,. and n s them as equitably as possible, and by raising a f4l°Unt of t axat i on upon t h ose articles which en '' in to the m os t genera l consumpt i on of the people. llit• `;7l,e,ple of free trade would not admit the Govern zirtiel;" le vya large amount of th e revenue u p on those e Which entered into the general consumption of ;),ch e o Pl i . e . Parliament had taken as its proposition, " 1 • 11 ( 11 b lood of th e peop l e an d the necessaries of life , h "op as che a p as possible. Having laid down this L b et ° l . - Zell, the alternative was clear, viz., that they ik ate th -44 e the required amount of revenue by the other "`efie f taxation to which he had referred. Up dPri on • i e ,Tneiples he would defy any of the noble lords to e imposition of o d l u o t o i , es upon malt and tea to c ent a and in the other to 200 p this I l l e t r hl i o a n e e s ca.7 t s e t Majesty's Government were then driven } °ll rse by the adoption of the principles forced 11. t ' l Al t v -era by the other side. The Government, acting, fitv. and honestly upon those principles, had felt it to titi e t i v t d t utY to take the course of reducing the ( amount thin g kin hanged upon necessary articles of consumption p• eal l'„ingdorn With respect to the effects of the ;NI the malt tax, he recollected that very high iZer c) ii,' i es had declared' on past occasions, that 30 a% final repeal of the corn law it would . be ~,, N e:h - t ` ule, if not unjust, to maintain ; t it11 4 ,7 ~ef duty upon malt. Sir J. Graham also th' e u. very strongly his opinion that the rep th 1e corn laws and of the malt duty must be e ,101,i4 c oncomitants of each . other, and that they could re Ju s tice, repeal the one without repealing the other. , al,l l D e al the whole of the malt duty was an act which,et„,(ll4l regard to the finances of the country , her Ma tte is Government would not think wise or just.. Act sowever, in conformity with the views which the 'bat h at 1 9 has sanctioned, the Government had considered N a ' Partial repeal of the duty on malt would be just It ldt,N s edient, or, if the phrase was better liked, "wise, a tid beneficial." It had also been objected that the 4,1/4111 Nent were continuing in its most odious shape . "orne tax. So far from that being the case, if one measure more clearly laid down than a t no o -_ Sthe 14 1) 3T the committee appointed last year in respec f i h e cmie tax, it was that there was a plain and palpable N th ' et ioll to be drawn between temporary and precarious ZV eB i , To the middle classes also material relief was va m pe d: :Y . the reduction of the tax upon incomes of a 4 1 " 1 " . character When the late Government were tli gohi i e b e ! it became a question whether the window tax I,keißre enntpreyal ed, and it was decided that it should, upon t he ° : 0 11 of its injurious effect on the sanitary condition At that time the late Chancellor of the i k °t ildl ier Was d es i rous o f imposing a house tax . wh d i e c w h a4 v e been equivalent in its amount to h 1 1 .4t ehi t exc w eeding by 200, 000/. the amount of the tax g h ah e h n a 's now intended to propose. But with regard I th use tax, he was at a loss to understand on , 51 14 . . R Pie of justice it was possible to stop short at ti ka i se rit i3 „. rt he value of 201. a year, thereby leaving the vast k l a.ti e n , / ef the houses of this country wholly free from tht i l e 'es , t he occupiers of a great num er of wh . ich w_ ere . , w eil hi_a,Xercising the privileg . e o . f the elective . fran ', ll , according to the principles . of the Liberal WO, e llt 'g v nt to be coterininous and coexistent with the . liti t) tri o ' . ,/ixes. But there was one other point in his he r o ., b ut 8 speech to which he must refer — namely, _ t \ is t h: ° Z . rci to the maintenance of the public credit. If to At marl of Derby) thought there was any one thing eobtatetfr,asure calculated to shake the public credit or ere i n degree with the good faith of the their - l a r n d y ship might depend upon it that his ii h tte h ti , en d would not s morewarmly oppose that measure Pe But he saw no symptoms of any such ' for the good faith of the country. At no R er c p ro ` lll ae were the funds of this country in a higher, ht tPel'ous, or a more steady condition _th e a n n d they at3tti the Present moment, and his fri e d to of tb have recourse to some such excuse for the Out e funds as that if they were not high now they 4 1 11 41: 4 to have been high. (Hear, hear.) Now, atk. 4 al n oble friend need not . have had recourse to the 1 40 4 '. W ei Plze of Sidney Smith's, " that the three per ~,P1)14. no the greatest fools in the world," for, without or i,tre ° 4 — , discuss the question whether the funds were hi ~,°‘ a tolerable barometer of the public confidence Ptet th, a4l 4. of confidence, he might remind . his noble At er fe e i i " ri lle had not heard, in any expression of the l N te est a gon the part of the monied and commercial 4ci whit lithis country, the slightest apprehension ex y,l)°aeo b regard to the consequencesof the measures th Y her Majesty's Government, nor did he find l ie e t t4 ",el l , ll , 4 for such apprehension in the state of the funds I N -8. tie should like to know why the funds did ilitliNier the apprehension that the Government th ht Y hi R duce those hyper-dangerous measures w _ ref t err w e a d s lu id n oble friend ? He wanted to know : r t he pressure of those apprehensions_th o y _e w fu h n o t rl.l,4 the tet 3 ' en ° 4 l o Wii ; why it was that the funds , 41 5"ee Government came into office . were w about 96, pP j o hil ett eadily and gradually creeping up h , t . 1 00 .r that event, and were now for . the first time from a few Cl t h l'ilt bstL a nd why it was that from that time to . this, 4 , 1 a 1 a4 -41 1 . 1 d ing all apprehensions of his noble friend, _,kl„ - gut th e yer been below 100 ? (Hear, hear.) . He gov;qtri c , o , was a tolerably fair indication, ma k in g full arl th e I °l ' all other circumstances tending to keep af tk qe ve-4;nterest of money, .of the public confidence ; bs e p,, e ,fu lkia ''nred still to think it was clear, from the state 7tio ' and from the absence of anything like an tal : 1 1 of hostile feeling on the part of the great com 4 ti r e of - t aa h s es, that there Was no apprehension of any hi," Public credit in consequence of the measures s bent Government. He ventured also to ex tl'oth4ll fr : l ief that the funds would be much more likely ali i -a410 11,,.. a n apprehension of the consequences arising th e --settlement of the present state of things, and !pt.3:lA,,,,idissolution of the present Government, than etteZl be by carrying—what he hoped to carry niedifications in the details but 'N I a nd as a whole those propositions which had . hOti • omit to the other ' house of Parliament by his NI: ell fri , end the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and iiiiitist,et.llsted would in due time come under the motion of their lordships' house. I°ll Waa agreed to. -0. PUBLIC WORKS. Ye ‘j a , \ ;," I. Moved for a return of the amount lent 4 e ~° n ere since 1830 by the Public Works Loan Corn : 'eerze? ligland, Scotland, and Ireland ; return of 4 el i • teans now outstanding in each kingdom : 1. 14 44 docks t . ' County rates ;2. Railroads ;3. Roads , p'. anti and harbours ;4. Other works and buil . d__- 4 1 a id fp " the years in which each of such loans will thtleMitio together with the rate of interest now paid kte ntiP l. The noble earl a l so as k e d w h e th er it was of her Majesty's Ministers to provide for ~~ r THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 15, 1852. the ratepayers in counties, any facilities for borrowing money for bridges, shire halls, gaols, asylums, &c., cor responding to those which they have hitherto enjoyed under the Public Works Loan Commission ? The Earl of DERBY said there could be no objection to grant the returns moved for by his noble friend ; but he found since his noble friend had given notice of his motion, that there was a return made to the House of Commons on the Bth of July, 1851, which would give up to that period the whole information which his noble friend asked for ' • and probably there might be some little variation of the terms of his noble friend's motion, so as to include the return made to the House of Com mons—a course which would probably suit the public convenience, and at the same time effect the object which his noble friend had in view. With regard to the ques tion which his noble friend had put, he imagined that his noble friend adverted to the declared intention, on the part of the Government to suspend the continuous issue of a sum amounting to 400,000/. or 500,000/. a year, under the management of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. It was the opinion of the Government that in the present state of the Money Market it was not desirable that the sys tem should be continued which was introduced under very different circumstances, and at a very different time, for the purpose of meeting a great public distress, and of facili tating the lending of capital by private persons, With respect to the reluctance of private money lenders to advance money which would be paid by temporary in stalments, and the consequent inconvenience not only with regard to public works, but various others. The motion, as amended on the suggestion of the Earl of DERBY, was then agreed to ; and the house ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.) ( Continued front our Third Edition of last evening. THE ADJOURNED DEBATE. Mr. OSBORNE said, that so far from having any wish to review the financial scheme of the Government in a captious spirit, he was willing to give credit to the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for two main points in his budget. He felt that he was entitled to credit, in the first place, for the relief he had afforded to the shipping interest. He lamented, indeed, that he had not gone further, and taken the duty off timber; but at any rate he thanked the right hon. gen tleman for what he had done in that line. (Hear, hear.) He thought likewise that the right hon. gentle man had taken a sagacious and statesmanlike view with respect to the tea duties. He was not disposed to quar rel and split straws with him because the reduction was to be effected in six years, instead of a less time, as pro posed by the hon. member for Glasgow, but he would at once say that he thought the right hon. gentleman deserved credit for these two improvements. (Hear, hear.) He was even disposed to go further, and say that the statement of the right hon. gentleman in bring ing forward the budget was as clear a statement as had ever been put before the house. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) knew no man in that house who combined the two antoganistic qualities of lucidity and obscurity so much as the right hon. gentleman—(laughter)—but he was bound to admit that in placing his financial state ment before the house, he had done so without any re serve or mystification, and that there could be no mistake on either side of the house as to what they were about to vote for in the present budget. Having made these admissions, he trusted he might be allowed to look at the budget as a whole. And if it was true, as the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Mills) stated on the previous night, that there was universal disappointment through out the country at the contents of the budget, he would take the liberty of asking what that disappointment had arisen from ? Was it not from the magnificent promises which were held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? (Hear.) The promises of the right hon. gentleman were so magnificent that the people in the country actually thought he had obtained possession by some means of the philosopher's stone—that a fiscal millennium was about to ensue—that the time was coming when tax gathering would cease, and when the consolidated fund would be converted into, a refuge for distressed agricul turists. (Laughter.) What was it that "loomed in the distance" in the month of June last ? If he understood the promise which was held out by the right hon. gen tleman in his address to his constituents, as advertised in The Times of June last, and again in his speech at Aylesbury, as reported in the same paper, it was just this,—that in his forthcoming budget he undertook no less a task than the total revision of the taxation of the country not a mere shifting of taxation from the shoulders of one class to another. (Hear, hear.) In his address to his constituents, dated June 2, 1852 and he begged the house to remark that that was not a common address, merely soliciting the votes of the electors, but an address in which he propounded a policy conveyed in beautiful language and most indistinct terms —(laughter)—in that address the right hon. gentleman said : " One of the soundest means, among others (to diminish the cost of production), is a revision of our taxation : juster notions of taxation are more prevalent than here tofore ; the possibility of greatly relieving the burdens of the community by both adjustment and reduction seems to loom in the future." Well, what had happened in December ? Had they had a revision of taxation ? (Hear, hear.) No. All that they had was an' ingenious attempt to tranfer a large portion of 2,500,0001., ',ht.\ was now raised through the means of an Excise duty, to the shoulders of a_class who were not supposed to be very favourable to the Government. (Hear.) And' he begged the house to remark, that while the remission of taxation was left to "loom in the future," the increase was to be sudden and immediate. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the Budget would at all conduce to reconcile conflicting interests, as the noble lord the member for King's Lynn seemed to suppose. The noble lord, he observed. had succeeded in catching the jargon of the other side of the house. It was merely " the area of taxation that was to be in creased" by the present Budget, they were told—which, to his (Mr. Osborne's) mind, looked very much as if a certain portion of the Budget were about to be with drawn. (Hear, hear.) The Budget seemed to him as if it had been conceived in a hostile, if not a revengeful spirit, againstthe middl e c l asses. (C r i es of " Oh I " from the Munsterialists.) What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in that singularly lucid and clear speech of his ? He said, that "the ten-pounders were revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the re peal of the corn laws." These words conveyed some thing very distinct to his mind, and convinced him that the right hon. gentleman had framed his Budget, not as a healing measure to reconcile conflicting interests, but as a scourge to the backs of those who were "revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the repeal of the corn laws." With respect to the question of direct or in direct taxation, he begged to say that he had never been one of those who had theorised much on that subject. In his opinion direct taxation might do very well in a new country, but in an old country like ours, with a large debt, and a purely artificial system, he thought we ought to proceed with great caution in laying on direct taxation. He now came to the speech of the Home Secretary last night, and he must say that he thought the criticism of that right hon. gentleman upon the observations of the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) was most extraordinary. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole), alluding to the house tax, said that the right hon. member for Halifax had imposed a most unjust tax upon houses ; and what was the remedy proposed by the Home Secretary ? Why, he thought the tax so unjust that he proposed to double it at once. (Laughter, and cheers from the Op position.) [Mr. Walpole was understood to say that he had described the tax as unequal.] Well (continued Mr. Osborne), but how did the right hon. gentleman render it more equal ? The Government adopted an arbitrary line, and proposed to extend the tax to 101. houses, but, if the tax was just in principle, why did they stop at 101. houses ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) was not one of those- who were particularly enamoured of the house tax. He I doubted the justice of that tax, and he thought the honourable member for the West Riding had succeeded last night in making out a very strong case against it ; but he asked the Home Secretary, if the house tax was unequal under the dynasty of the right hon. member for Halifax, how he (Mr. Walpole) made it more equal by extending it to 101. houses ? Why were such large numbers of cottages in the country to be excluded from the opera tion of this extended tax, which would tell almost exclusively upon the towns ? He contended that if this tax was just in principle the Government were bound to apply it equally to town and country. (Cheers.) What was sauce for your town goose was equally sauce for your rural gander—(loud laughter)—a,nd it was not by cutting the feathers of the one bird that any com pensation could be given to the other. (A laugh.) Let the house mark that "compensation" was the term, and he was prepared to argue that this plan of laying on the house tax was nothing more than compensation to the agricultural interest, (Some cries of "No," and " Oh!" from the Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the Opposition.) Now he would, with their permission, in form them what were the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed in the months of March and July last, as to his plans for the compensation of the landed interest. It was a very curious thing that the right hon. gentlemen had fixed upon the exact amount' of compensation which he was ready to give. Th e r i g ht hon. gentleman said : " It is quite clear, by your system of local taxation, land is subject to 2,500,0001. more than any other property in the country." Now this was the exact half of the malt tax which the right hon. gentleman proposed to take off. " If Parliament will not, in the manner I recommend"— namely, by countervailing duties, which were now given up, "do justice to the agricultural interest, they must submit to a revision of the taxation of the country, and they may depend upon it the redress which their own sense of justice will ultimately prompt them to accord to -the agricultural interest will be obtained in a manner far more coarsely, and by means much more expensive." . . " The policy of her Majesty's Ministers is to do justice to the land ; to bring in measures of redress for all those great producing interests which are now suffering injustice ; if the country will not have recourse to these remedial measures we bow to their decision ; but, though wo may not be Ministers, still, as members of Parliament, we will labour for other measures of redress • wo will, though in opposition"—in whi c h s it ua ti on he (kir. Osborne) hoped soon to see them—(laughter)—" exert ourselves to obtain those countervailing and compensatory regulations which justice demands." That was in the month of March ; but, at a dinner of his constituents at Newport Pique], on the 14th of July the right hon. gentleman said : " It is in reviewing the system of taxation, in the re-ad justment of that system, that the cultivators of the soil find that compensation which they have a right to expect from the abrogation of the corn laws." That was the opinion expressed in the month of July last by the right hon. gentleman at the head of the go vernment. (Some laughter from the Ministerial side.) Well, the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at the head of the Government. (" Hear," and some cheering from the Opposition.) There was no doubt of that, and he was glad to see the right hon. gentleman, on account of his abilities and talents, in such a position- (Hear, hear.) But what did a right hon. gentlemen say who was at the tail of the Government? (Laughter.) He would inform the house what were the opinions of that right hon. gentleman, which were so far valuable, because he was almost the last of the Romans—the last of the Protectionists. (" Hear," and a laugh.) Whenever the right hon. gentleman wrote a letter ho (Mr. Osborne) was always delighted to see it. (Laughter.) It was true that a great many letters had been forged in the right hon. gen tleman's name, but in order to secure correct copies, he (Mr. Osborne) did—what he recommended every hon. member to do—he took in the Stamford Mercury— (great laughter)—a most excellent paper—(a laugh)— and, having the advantage of being the right hon. gen tleman's organ, no fictitious letters were printed in it. (Renewed laughter.) Well, what did the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say ? He (Mr. Osborne) was going to read them. Mr. Christopher's very last----(laughter)—his very last letter to the electors of Lindsey, is which he expressed his opinions upon the present budget. The right hon. gentleman, writing to the poor deluded Lincolnshire farmers, said,— " The Government have presented a financial scheme, which, although there is only a surplus revenue of 1,300,0001., will relieve the agricultural interest of a vexa tious impost to the amount of 2,500,0001." (Laughter.) Well, the right hon. gentleman did not seem particular to a shade or two. (A laugh.) He did not tell those to whom he wrote that in his way of stat ing the question he was leaving a deficit of 1,200,0001., but he endeavoured to persuade the electors of Lincoln shire that the financial scheme of the Government would, from a surplus revenue of 1,300,0001.,—the Go vernment, he (Mr. Osborne) supposed, being so gene rous as to make up the difference from their own sala ries —(a laugh)—enable them to remove a vexatious im post of 2,500,0001. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) asked any gentleman whether, after hearing these statements of the head and tail of the Government,--(laughter)—com bining all shades of opinion, they could doubt that the house tax was laid upon the middle classes as what the right hon. gentleman called a compensatory regulation for the suffering agricultural interest ? (Some cries of " Oh !" from the Ministerial side, and cheers from the Opposition.) He thought there could be no doubt that this house tax was laid on for no other reason than to compensate the agricultural classes for what they had lost by the repeal of the corn laws. (Hear, hear.) Now, they had heard a great deal about the malt tax, and he must say that if the Exchequer was overflowing, and other more oppressive taxes were taken off, he for one would have no objection to vote for the repeal of the malt tax, but at the same time he thought it was one of those taxes which ought not to be removed, unless the country was in a state of great prosperity, and there was a real, and not a fictitious, surplus in the Exchequer. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in dealing with this question last night, had argued as if there was a great surplus in the Exchequer, and he did not seem for a moment to consider that by taking off the malt tax he was making a deficit. The right hon. gentleman kept steadily out of the consi deration of the house the fact that in taking off the malt tax he was making such a deficit that the Govern ment were obliged to extend the house tax, and to lower the income tax to 1001. of precarious income, and 501. foe simple. The right hon. gentleman had argued the matter as if he was doing all this from an overflowing Exchequer, instead of commencing by making a deficit. He (Mr. Osborne) thought the right hon. Home Secre tary, when he was arguing as to the effect of repealing the malt tax, and looked back for something like 100 years, quite forgot the altered habits and tastes of the people of this country. He seemed completely to have forgotten that the people of this country now consumed upwards of 60,000,0001 b. of tea, and 40,000,0001 b. of coffee, and that the taste for those beverages was un questionably extending. He (Mr. Osborne) would not stop to argue this question upon sanitary grounds, for he believed that to be purely nonsense. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He believed it would be just as possible to prove that there was a great increase of nervous dis orders in consequence of the use of tea, as to prove that there was any harm in good wholesome beer.—such beer as brewed by his excellent friend the member for Derby (Mr. Bass). He (Mr. Osborne) believed beer to be a good, wholesome, and national beverage ; and, there fore, he at once dismissed all sanitary considerations on the subject. (A laugh.) He must deny, however, that this proposed reduction of the malt tax was a consumer's question. He denied that the price would be materially affected so far as the artisan and mechanic were con cerned. (Hear, hear.) What had every gentleman who was acquainted with the brewing trade, and who had spoken during the debate, said on the subject ? The hon. member for Derby, who, he thought, had sailed rather near the wind with regard to protection, had admitted last night, that although barley had been fall ing in price for many years, the brewer was the only man who got the benefit. Indeed, that hon. gentleman said in effect, "If you'll take off the whole malt tax, we will give you something handsome ;" and it seemed that this "something handsome," if one-half the malt-tax was repealed, would be a farthing a quart upon the price of beer I ("Hear, hear;" and a laugh.) But, if_ it did not benefit the Lov: would till,: partial remission of the malt-tax benefit the farmer ? Now, he (Mr. Osborne) was himself a considerable bar ley-grower. He had taken some pains in considering the e.yid he did not believe the proposed measure - could benefit the agricultural interest Teneyally. What portion of the agricultural interest was chiefly suffering at this time ? Not the producers of barley. (Hear, hear.) He knew that the barley-producers were never better off than they were now. He had himself sold bar ley last week, and he never got a better price since he had been farming. (Hear, hear.) But what was the description of agricultural land, the occupiers of which were now complaining ? The heavy clay lands, the wheat lands. (Hear, hear.) Well, he might be told, perhaps, that this land would be forced into the produc tion of barley ; but what sort of barley would they get from 'such land ? (Hear, hear.) Every one at all ac quainted with the subject knew that the inferior sorts of barley had no sale with the brewers, but the brighter kinds of barley, such as Vie best chevalier barley, were what they bought. It was then absurd to suppose that the partial remission of the malt tax could be of any be nefit to the farmer. Then something had been said about the advantages which would be derived by the farmer with regard to the fattening of cattle ; but the opinion of all the practical men of science,—of Liebeg, of Dr. Lyon Playfair, and of others, which were quoted before Lord Monteagle's committee in 1846,—was, that cattle might be fattened much better upon ground barley than upon malt. He (Mr. Osborne) denied that this partial remission of the malt tax would benefit either the consumer, by lowering the price of beer materially, or the agricultural interest as a whole, by allowing the farmer to grow a high class of barley, or to fatten his cattle . to advantage. But he could adduce on this point the evidence of a gentleman who had applied his mind to these matters, and who was well qualified to form a judgment on the subject. In the year 1851, when the hon. member for Derby brought forward his motion for a reduction of one half of the malt-tax, the hon. member for 'North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) expressed himself in the following terms : " No man had voted more steadily than himself for the total repeal of the malt tax ; but its partial remission would neither diminish the expense of its collection nor remove the restrictions which it imposed upon agriculture or on brewing at home ; in short, it would afford none of those indirect advantages which the agricultural commun ity valued. He would rather support the partial reduc tion of a customs' duty than that of an excise, because a reduction of the first would lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting customs, while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial repeal of an excise tax." Now, if he (Mr. Osborne) were to speak for five hours —if he were making a budget speech, and he did not say so sneeringly, for he had listened with great delight to the whole speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer —he could not adduce better reasons against the partial remission of the malt tax. He therefore claimed the vote of the hon. member for North Warwickshire on this occasion. He had, however, a still higher autho rity against the partial repeal of the malt tax—that of the late Sir It Peel, who summed up most compendi ously the advantages and disadvantages of the tax in a speech which he made in 1835. (Hear, hear.) In that speech the right hon. baronet proved most con clusively that no tax was collected at so trifling a loss to the revenue, and he showed that 5,100,000/. of revenue was collected at an expense of only 150,0001., and warned the house in the most emphatic language against tampering with that tax. He (Mr. Osborne) found that whenever the house had made any changes in the malt tax they had always come back to its reimpo sition. In 1816 one half of the malt tax was removed, and in 1819 it was again imposed. In March, 1821, the tax was repealed, and in the following April the vote was rescinded. On a Friday in 1833, also, the malt tax was repealed, and on the following Monday the resolu tion for its repeal was rescinded. He thought that if the house adopted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would enter upon a most mischievous course, for they would remove a tax which was collected at the least possible expense, which was onerous and oppressive to no one, which would not relieve the agri cultural interest as a whole, and which would not cheapen beer to any great extent. They would, in fact, be repealing a tax in order to keep up a delusion that it would benefit the agricultural interest, while, in fact, it would only benefit the brewer and the publican. (Hear, hear.) He must say he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have forsaken all his former schemes. He wished to know why the right hon. gen tleman had not moved for a committee of the house to consider the peculiar burdens affecting land. (Hear, and alaugh.) What had become of the right hon. gentleman's schemes for the growth of tobacco in Ireland ? (Hear, and a laugh.) What had become of the right hon. gentle man's proposal for placing the establishment charges of the poor-rate on the consolidated fund ? The right hon. gentleman had given no reason the other night for not having stood by his colours, and for not bringing forward some motion to place the establishment charges on the consolidated fund. He (Mr. Osborne) would not pro mise the right hon. gentleman his vote, but he would tell him this, having some interest connected with land—that he thought it would be a very fair subject of inquiry whether there were any peculiar burdens affecting land, in order that the question might be finally set at rest. He thought the right hon. gentleman was bound, after all his promises, to have held.: out to the agricultural interest something more solid than this partial repeal of the malt tax, which was, in fact, no concession to the agricultural interest, He (Mr, Osborne) entirely dissented from the manner in which the in come tax had been treated by the Government. He re garded that tax as most inquisitorial in its nature, and as extremely de moralizing to the people of this country... It was only necessary to read the evidence of Mr. Pr ei isly, and of the other witnesses examined before the committee on the income-tax, to be satisfied of it s demoralising tendency. He (Mr. Osborne) must, however, deny the statement which had been made, that that tax had been imposed in order to maintain free trade. .He understood —when the tax was brought forward by the late Sir R. Peel—that it was proposed as a temporary expedient to make up a deficit. (Cheers.) It was merely a temporary expedient voted for three years—(hear, h ear)—but Par liament had since gone on voting it for tihree years at a time. It had been said that the public ha• d become habi tuated to this tax, but, for his own part, he hoped the public would not become habituated to i t—(hear, hear) —for he regarded it as a most odious tax, because it was both inquisitorial and demoralising. Th, 3 Government were bound to state their views upon thiis subject, and as to the length of -time for which this inc, >me tax was to be imposed ; for they had at other threes given very strong opinions upou it. Lord Derby• said, on the 28th of February, 1851, in the other houss', that " any , surplus revenue that might arise should, i i the first in stance be applied towards a reduction and. final extinc tion of the income tax ; " and that wrier followed up in the House of Commons by a mottion to that effect, made by the President of the India Board (Mr. Herries), whom he (Mr. Osborne) was sorry not to have heard upon this Budget :for the right hon. gentleman was an able financier, arid his studied abstinence from assenting to anything in t b is budget was remarkable—(hear, hear)—when he was appealed to, there had been nothing but a grave shru g• and a very suspicious silence. (Hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) would not go into the distinction attempted to be drawn be tween precarious and certain income ; he, did not feel qualified to give any opinion as to the justice or the scientific accuracy of the discriminating duty proposed. That question had puzzled many wise men.. He remem bered hearing the late Sir R. Peel say that; if you deter mined to interfere in that way, you would have to do away with the tax altogether—that you never could make any approximation to a discriminati cm. He (Mr. Osborne) wished to look further into the .subject before pronouncing upon that part of the scheme. (Hear.) He would proceed now to advert to some very remarkable opinions which he had heard uttered the other night by the hon. member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), whom, however, he begged to assure, when venturing upon any criticism of those opinions, that :no one more admired his literary talent—(hear, hear)--he read him with delight by day, and listened to him with pleasure by night—(laughter and cheers)—he wan a man who must do honour to any assembly of which he was a mem ber. (Cheers.) But this must be said of that distin guished member of Parliament and of the literary world, that he gave somewhat original reasons for his change of politics—a subject into which he (Mr. Osborne) should not have thought of entering, but that the hon. baronet had considered it necessary to make a defemee not only for the Ministers, but for himself, when his conduct was not impugned. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet said he had always abided by the Liberal party till it was in a state of exhaustion, and then he left it. For what ? Because he differed with them on the principle of free trade. And what did he do ? Why, he joined the other party just as they had given up the principle for opposition to which he had left his friends ! (Laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) A singular reason for so eminent a member of Parliament to give ! (Hear.) Singular that he should have left the corpse of the noble lord without consigning it to a decent funeral—(laughter and cheers)—but more singular that he should have left the noble lord upon a difference on the principle of free trade, and joined the right hon. gentleman opposite just as he had given up the principle for which the hon. baronet forsook the noble lord ! (Hear.) He hoped the hon. member had not forgotten his speeches for the ballot and triennialeParliaments. He hoped the air of Herts had not had that enervating effect upon him that he had forgotten his vigorous youth when representing Lincoln. "Hear, hear," and a laugh.) But he chiefly referred to the hon. baronet because he gave an extraordinary opinion, for him the other night, in favour of direct taxation. Probably one of his books, by which he would live longest in the world, was that admirable work upon the institutions of this country " England and the English." (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) would advise every new member immediately to get a copy of that work—(laughter)—because there was a chapter on the formation of a national party which, at this particular epoch, was well worthy of study—(hear, hear)—and in which he gave his opinion upon taxation ; and here were his views on taxation. They were a little curious, as compared with his present views. This was in chapter 8. The book was published in 1840 : " I have little faith in the virtue of any commutation of taxes. I have studied the intricacies of our finance; I have examined the financial systems of other countries ; and I cannot discover any very large fiscal benefit as the probable result of new combinations of taxation. House and win dow-taxes are less just than property tax." (Cheers from the Opposition.) He then went on, in re ference to direct taxation, of which he was now enamoured. " An immense national debt renders direct taxation a dangerous experiment." (Hear, hear.) And here was a most extrao r di nary no t e ; he (11fr. Osborne) believed it was only appended to the fourth edition. [Sir E. B. Lytton.---" The book was written twenty years ago."] This was published in 1840. [Sir E. B. Lytton—" 1833.1 But had the hon. member forsworn all his opinions - of 20 years ago ? Then b. Lal tile other n io,+ knear, hear, and laughter.) He (Mr - Osborne) thought the hon. member quitted his party only for free trade. (Hear.) But at any rate this note was worth listening to, and was most instructive. This was revised by the hon. gentleman • it was the last editio n h e rev i se d, an d here was the editor's note ; let county members listen to this : " I firmly believe that if the national debtor be ever in danger, the fatal attack will come less from the Radicals than the country gentlemen"—(lond cheers from the Oppo sition)—" who are jealous of the fundholder or crippled with mortgages. The day after the repeal of half the malt tax (leaving a large deficit in the revenue) was carried I asked one of its principal supporters, a popular and inde pendent country gentleman —he (Mr. Osborne) believed it t was Mr. Cayley—(laughter)—and h e h a d no thi ng t o say t ag u a p r i o e ns p n air t jut!'itieaer p edcefiouneunittLofo'illidßemyrTa, ee If shim—at" tax of 2 perhcoewnt.h,'eqpurootPh does not sufficeosheel, asked I, `Why, then we must tax him 4 p er cen t.,' was the' ' honest rejoinder !" The hon. member, transplanted from the healthy atmos phere of Lincoln to the rather sickening and enervating soil of Hertfordshire, came down and said it was written 20 years ago. He (Mr. Osborne) supposed the hon. member was now a convert to direct taxation, and very probably he would go upon " Master Fundholder." (Laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) In this de bate very little comparatively has been said upon the Irish part of the question. (A. laugh.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his address to the Buckinghamshire constituency, eloquently alluding to that country, said that "Ireland had irresistible claims." H e (M r. O s born e) was one of those who, though repre sen ti ng an E n glish n anyte circumstances paltry consid of Ire land,erations in t co constit uency, but n r oper ty wise,ofrom i n would never shrink from saying thate was he neither Ireland, thought, under beneficial, nor politic, to ex tend any additional taxation to that country. (Hear.) He would go further, and say th e " consolidated annui ties " were a gross injustice to that country, and the labour-rate,people of that country, and no opti on was g i ven th em inthespeedibnyg it, but tmhoenire roads were broken up w as f orce d upon the and th e h people system. (Hear, hear.) He would sa y f ur th er , th a t the famine was a bad and unjust looked up on as an imperial o u gtalways calamity—(hear, hear)—and Ireland no more charged for it than she would have been for the expense of a de fence, if a foreign invader had landed in Ireland—(hear, hear)—and till these accounts were upon a juster footing he, for one, would be no party to an increase of taxation uponlreland. hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davis on ) l as t n i g ht were t weight, one B ne eeiil ut d , if the arguments of the have little hope for Ire land. The hon. member, who said h e was no ora t or , but a simple man of business, gave as a reason for o have an y sup porting the budget, that there was a most popular lord lieutenant, a most amiable chief secretary, and most intelligent law officers. (Laughter and cheers.) It was true enough—(ministerial cheers)—but was that any reason why the people of this counti were to be loaded with the house tax (Cheers from the opposition.) If he (Mr. Osborne) might speak respectfull— y to the Irish members, who he thought in the main always voted right—(hear)—for the advance of great and liberal prin ciples—(hear)—he would say to them, " Beware how you inflame the mind of the English people by laying on a tax you refuse to bear yourselves." (Loud cries of "'Hear, hear.") But the virtues" of tile Irish function aries were no argument for laying on a tax, and would be very little consolation to the English householder when the collector called. (Laughter.) The Home Secretary wound up his most interesting and spirited speech by an elaborate panegyric upon h is colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Osborne) was not prepared to say that in many points of that pane gyric he did not fully concur. (Hear, hear.) He would grant all that was said as to the energy, the ability, the great powers of the right hon. gentleman—(hear' hear) —he would grant it ungrudgingly and fully, (Hear, hear.) He thought the right hon. gentlem an had the ing enium velox, audacia perdita, sermo promptus. ("Hear, hear," and laughter.) But he must take ex ception when the Home Secretary talked of him as the most bold and prudent financier the world had ever seen. (Laughter.) With regard to finance, he (M r . O s b orne) was of opinion that the great majority of that house would incline to think that in financial projects " discre tion was the better part of valour." (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) But the right hon. gentleman went on to say, following in the footsteps of the hon. member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), that this budget must be a most popular budget, because there was such a cor dial reception at Guildhall—(laughter)—and he quoted a passage from Lucretius, as he (Mr. Osborne) believed; but he was irresistably reminded of a parallel scene in the life of two illustrious men in bygone days at Guild hall, he alluded to the reception of Buckingham, and Richard 111., when Duke of Gloster, at Guildhall. Gentlemen would remember the quotation in Slaak speare " When he had done, some followers of mine own, ";At lower end o' the hall, hurl'd up their caps, " And some ten voices cried, God save King Richard , !' " And thus I took the 'vantage of those few,— " Thanks, gentle citizens, and friends,' quoth I ; " This general applause and cheerful shout " Argues your wisdom and your love to Richard.' " The passages were somewhat parallel. (Great laughter and cheering.) He would venture to suggest to the Home Secretary, when he, quoted the reception at Guild hall, that it was not very probable a set of well-to-do gentlemen, who were met to discuss the tender merits of turtle and venison, would be inclined to criticise with any severe eye the dry details of a financial project. (Hear, hear.) No, those were not the classes they must quote as giving a cordial reception to their budget. (Hear, hear.) It was the industrious clerk, striving to support his family upon an income of not 1501. a year — (cheers)—it was the energetic mechanic, just emerging into independence—(cheers) —whom they must ask what I they thought of the budget. (Hear, hear.) Sure he was this budget could never be popular with those classes in this country ; and he called upon the house, in the name of those classes, to resist a budget which was based at once upon tyranny and injustice. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Alderman THOMPSON observed, that if the hon. member (Mr. Osborne) was disappointed in the budget as meagre, others, such as the members for Hali fax and Cambridge (Sir C. Wood and Mr. Goulburn), complained that it contained too much, and that it would have been wiser if he had divided it over two years. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Alderman Thompson) conceived that the budget was a bold, and wise, and statesmanlike budget. (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) It was one which, in his opinion, deserved the confidence of the country— (hear, hear)—and, he believed, with the ex ception probably of the persons assembled within those walls, it had it. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The hon. member said the budget was framed in a revengeful spirit. Did he mean to say that the working classes would receive no benefit from the reduction of the duty on tea, and from the reduction of the sugar duty in July? [Mr. Osborne—That is not in the budget.] Well, but when he complained of the hardship upon those who occupied houses at rents between 101. and 201., it was proper to show that they found relief from the course of legislation adopted of late years, and that they had more than an equivalent in the reduction of duties on foreign commodities requisite for their comfort. (Hear, hear.) Of all investments, capital invested in 201. and 101. houses was the most productive. They generally paid from 10 to 20 per cent. ; but parties always calculated what the taxes were, as well as the rent, and the tax was a landlord's tax. An hon. mem ber (Mr. Cobden) attempted last night, but failed, as he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) thought, to draw a distinction between the tax on land and that on houses. He (Mr. Alderman Thompson) did not mean to say that he was prepared to vote for a double house tax, but he was pre pared to go the length of voting that the tax should be extended to houses of 101. rent. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Middlesex expressed his approbation of that part of the budget which related to shipping, but intimated that a reduction of the timber duties would be deemed a greater relief than the remission of dues. He (Mr. Alderman Thompson), knowing something of shipowners, was very much startled at that pro position. Yesterday, he met with the largest ship owner in England, and when he said so, he must be taken as meaning the greatest shipowner in the whole civilized world. That shipowner, on being asked what he thought of the proposition made by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, said, "Nothing in the world can be better." "Not better than the repeal of the timber duties ?" he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) replied ; "Pooh, the repeal of the timber duties would be a mere drop in the ocean," was the response. With respect to that part of the Budget which had reference to the sugar-growing colonies, he must say, that though relief would be given to a small amount by the facility given for refining sugar in bond, he was of opinion that the course of legislation which had been pursued with re spect to those colonies had been unjust. For the last year he admitted that the import of sugar grown in the British colonies had been considerably increased ; yet that increase might be attributed to the great quantity which was planted in 1850, when there was a differen tial duty of 7s. per cwt. He was afraid that in the next two years, when the Duties on British and foreign grown sugar would become equali se d, it wou ld b e f oun d that the est Indian colonies would fall off greatly in respect of production. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the duty on tea, he had always laboured under the apprehension that if that duty were continued at a rate equal to 240 per cent., while the Chinese admitted British manufactures at a duty of 5 per cent., and America, which was the next importing country, in point of quantity, to the United Kingdom, admitted tea from China without duty, the time might come when the Chinese Government might say they would charge more than 5 per cent, on the cotton manufactures of this country. With respect to the income tax, he admired the courage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in propo sing a modification of the present uniform rate of charge. When he heard the Secretary for the Home Department allude last night to terminable annuities, he hoped that the injustice which a uniform rate of income tax involved in that case would be considered, and relief afforded. With reference to the censures cast on the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the right hon members for Halifax and for the University of Oxford, in consequence of the pro posal to extend the income tax to fundholders in Ireland he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) agreed with the noble lord the member for Lynn, that the debt was the debt of the United Kingdom, and not of England solely. By the 6th clause of the act sth George IV., passed to facilitate the transfer of stock in Ireland, it was enacted that each stock should be deemed, reputed, and taken to be one capital or joint-stock. It was not the poor shopkeeeper or the landowner that was the stockholder in Ireland. It was the banking interest; and the joint-stock banks in Ireland were carried on not by Irish but by English capitalists, who were making large profits. (Hear, hear.) Sir B. HALL said, that the question the house had decido ;- th o ~..utuer the house tax should be doubled, or should continue at its present amount. He was surprised to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not disposed to take issue upon that question, but only wished the house to determine that the area of taxation, as regarded houses, should be extended. But that was not the question. The real question was, should the house tax be doubled for the purpose of repealing the malt duty ? He would en deavour to show that the increase of the house duty was unfair and unjust, and that the distinction drawn be tween the tenant-farmer and the tenant-tradesman was invidious, and ought not to be carried out. He would show that while by the proposed plan the inhabitants of towns would be additionally taxed 4 or 5 per cent., the inhabitants of rural districts would be relieved 50, 60, or 70 per cent. The noble lord the member for Dur ham (Lord A. Vane) said last night that if any unpopu larity attached to this tax it would be owing to the mem ber for Marylebone, who had excited the people at public meetings against it. He could assure the noble lord he was extremely mistaken. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer, in his speech on Friday week, spoke of the intelli gence of the inhabitants of the metropolis ; and he assured the noble lord that they at least had sufficientintelligence to understand subjects that were brought under their consideration, and were able to see whether they were likely to have a tax inflicted upon them that was unjust. It was the conviction, of the people that to double the house duty would be an injustice, and they were deter mined to oppose it. It was therefore, to a great extent, a matter of indifference whether the present proposition was carried or not. It the tax were imposed, it would be only for a short time, as petitions would flow into the house in numbers similar to those of 1833 and 1834, and the Government would be obliged to abandon the tax. He was in favour of direct taxation, so far as it could be justly carried out ; but, if they made direct taxation un just, they would render the system odious, and this, he maintained, they were now proposing to do, both in re ference to the house tax and the income tax. In refer ring to the window duty, the Chancellor of the Exche quer said that the people of the metropolis urged its repeal solely on sanitary grounds. He (Sir B. Hall) was surprised to hear that statement, not only because it was wholly unfounded, but because the right hon. gentleman ought to have known that it was so. The right hon. gen tleman was at the time one of the loudest declaimers against the tax. It was one of his earliest propositions in reference to political subjects that the window tax ought to be re pealed. The sanitary question had not been raised till re cently, whereas 20 years ago the window tax was con sidered a very vexatious impost. According to a return which he had before him, the alteration of the house duty in the city of London alone would impose a tax upon the inhabitants to the amount of 73,1081., whereas the window tax amounted only to 69,300/., so that there would be an increase of taxation to the amount of 3,8081. in that portion of the metropolis only. But if he went further, and compared the amount of window tax paid in 1851 with the amount of house tax to be paid in 1853, and then also compared what was paid by the towns and what by tho counties, he should be able to show that the proposition was most unjust towards the inhabitants of towns. The Government might carry their resolution in committee, but they never would be able to pass it into a law. He would just state how the case would stand in St. George's, Hanover-square. The amount of window duty in 1851 was 47,3501. ; the house duty in 1853 would be 63,212/. —being an increase of 15,8621., or 25 per cent. The evening of the budget speech he (Sir B. Hall) expressed his belief that it was the commencement of a war of town against country, and he said so still. There was too much intelligence among the people, however, for the success of the scheme ; they would never consent to this taxation, and and he was quite sure that if they carried their propo sition in the house, they would not be able to carry it into effect in the country. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. DUCKWORTH said he was desirous to accept the invitation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ro gard the budget as a whole and as one comprehensive scheme of taxation ; and, looking on it in that light, he was prepared to give his support to it and to the prin ciples it involved. Representing a city deeply interested in the welfare of our shipping, it was unnecessary for him to say he approved of all that portion of the budget which related to that interest, which was admitted by all 'persons, as well as by shipowners, to involve a just re laxation of the taxation and burdens which pressed upon that important class of the community. On the whole, it did not appear unfair or unreasonable for the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to impose direct taxation on the country to the whole extent of the reductions and advan tages of his scheme. But a large imperial question was involved in the vote they were called upon this evening to give, which would be one e x p ress i ve o f t h e i r op i n i o n as to whether or not the Government were desirous of treating all classes of the community, as respected taxa tion, fairly and justly. Now, though he confessed that the class among which his constituents ranked would have been treated unjustly by so large an increase of taxation as that proposed, yet, as he understood that that increase of taxation was not affirmed by the resolution now before the house, but that, on the contrary, it would be open to them hereafter to discuss the extent to which this taxation should go, he was prepared to give his vote in favour of maintaining the Government in the position which they now occupied, and which ho believed was the real question upon which he was called on to decide. He did this from a confidence that the final result would be that justice would be done to all classes of the com munity--to those whom he represented no less than to those who were represented by other members around him. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exche quer whether the nature of the question before the house was not entirely altered by his statement that evening, and whetherthe right hon. gentleman would not withdraw the resolution, or alter it, so that the house might come to some clear understanding on the subject, and know what was the point upon which they were to divide ? He had no objection to the principle of extending the house tax, but he opposed the course now proposed, because no case had, in his opinion, been made out to show that any addition to the taxation of the country was necessary. It was absolutely necessary that they should have some explanation upon the point he had suggested. It would puzzle any man out of the house, and it puzzled him in the house, to know what was the subject of debate. He would now state what he thought of the budget. The right hon. gentleman had taken a bold course ; he (Mr. Hume) wished, in some respects, he had taken o. more judicious one. The declaration of the right hen. gentleman, that this was to be a free trade budget, that he had put to rest for ever the vexed question of class politics, appeared to him (Mr. Hume) a matter of great importance, if he could only perceive its realization ; but the financial statement of the Government was really at variance with that declaration. The right hon. gentleman deserved the thanks of the coun try for the manner in which he had dealt with the griev ances affecting the shipping interest. (Hear, hear.) From the year 1823 down to the present time he (Mr. Hume) had never ceased to point out the injustice done to the mercan tile marine of this country by existing legislation, and the right hon. gentleman had now laid down principles regard ing that interest which he trusted he would carry out, to his own credit and to the advantage of the country. With regard to the question of salvage, perhaps the house were not aware that both the French and the American Govern ments had ordered that no ships belonging to the navies of those two countries should ever call for one single shilling for assistance rendered to merchant ships, and the captains in those services were directed to afford assistance, not only to their own mercantile marine, but to that of other na tions. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for the altera tion he had effected here. As to passing tolls, these had been a species of robbery from the shipowner—(hear)— and the right hon. gentleman was also entitled to the thanks of the house for the alteration he proposed with re gard to them. Pilotage was another question of vast im portance. It was extraordinary that this country should have no fixed rules for the government of the mercantile marine in this particular, and he hoped now that the whole subject would be placed upon a fair, full, and equi table footing. (Hear.) With regard to the enlistment of merchant sailors at sea in her Majesty's vessels, he had actually known ships lost in consequence of being thus abandoned by a portion of their crew, and an alteration in the existing system had therefore been imperatively called for. If there was anything more important than this, it was that the manning clause should be immediately re pealed, and that shipowners should have the power of taking foreign seamen on board. (Hear, hear.) He would never be satisfied until ships were free from lighthouse dues and all other special duties whatever. (Hear, hear.) He wanted to see ships come in and out of harbour free from taxation, and then, indeed, we should have facility of communication. Looking to the competition which ex isted, and to the danger there was of losing our coasting trade altogether, our shipping should be entirely free. Why should the mercantile navy solely pay for the lights which the Royal navy equally used The mercantile navy had franked the Queen's ships from the maintenance of all lights and beacons, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done a great act of justice in relieving the merchant service from some of their burdens. The arrangement with regard to refining sugar in bond was beneficial to the colonies, and was no less so to this country. He only wished the right hon. gentleman would contrive some means for con veying labour to the colonies ; otherwise they would never be able to pay the interest upon loans. Having been ruined by imperial legislation, they ought to be considered. The hon. member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) said that free trade ought to be carried out. Yet 233 manufactured articles still bore protective duties, and about 42 articles connected with agriculture. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolish these protective duties ? He need not then have added to the taxation of the country at all. The abolition of half the malt tax was not enough. It ought to be abolished altogether. (Hear, hear.) The public might then get rid of the monopoly of the brewer, if the licensing system were also abolished. (Cheers.) He should be prepared to show at some other time that, socially, morally, and physically, it was necessary to bring back the people from the use of ardent spirits, to which they had been driven by the high price of malt. These 233 articles only produced 434,0001. The duty on cheese only brought 5,0001. to the revenue. and that upon butter 158,000/. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cleared off all these duties it would have been a great honour to him, and would have been received with acclamations by the country. (Cheers.) The course taken by the right hon. gentleman upon the income tax was highly consistent with the evidence taken before the Income Tax Committee. He thought it a bold step for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to establish a distinction be tween fixed and precarious incomes, because he was opposed by every one else. (A laugh.) Two Chancellors of the Exchequer were prepared to vote against him, as well as the right hon. gentleman who represented the University of Oxford. But he was confident the right hon. gentleman mot the common sense of the whole community—(cheers)— and, happen what would, he was confident that this dis tinction must obtain and become established, with the greatest possible benefit to the country, because it would enable direct taxation to ibe established. The principle was that all men should pay according to their revenue, ( 261.424 t vflyeted6t reolakelbaith 'Tar afutiniy whatever. No less than sixty-seven per cent. of the in come of the country was raised by the two items of Cus toms and Excise, the greater proportion of which was paid by the industrious classes. Industry had thus paid double and treble the amount contributed by property. Land contributed only 1,750,0001. to the property tax, while professional incomes and trades contri buted 3,500,0001. A tax on property of 5 per cont. would enable us to dispense with the assessed taxes and the Excise. In 1814-15 the land of England was valued at 34,500,0001.; it then bore 64 per cent. of the whole pro perty tax. In 1848 the land paid 30 per cent. less than in 1814. He recommended the right hon. gentleman to ex empt no real property, however small the amount ; nothing should save it. With reference to the house tax, ho con sidered it to be one of the worst taxes that could be col lected. If anything were a reflection upon the rich and wealthy of this country, it was the wretched hovels with which the kingdom abounded. A tax which produced that result could not be vindicated, and he had no hesita tion in denouncing it as a most unjust and unequal tax. It was called a direct tax ; but, if they wanted to raise a di rect tax, let them add 1 per cent. to the property tax, and strike off the existing impost upon houses, and they would receive more by that additional 1 per cent. than by doub ling or trebling the house tax. He reminded hon. gentle men opposite that the land of England would be nothing without its commerce, and, looking to England as a great manufacturing and commercial country, he was anxious to simplify taxation by 'freeing industry and labour, and raising a third or a fourth of the taxation of the country by direct means. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. member was understood to say that he should vote against any increase of taxation, and against applying the 400,0001. repayment of loans for public works to the general expen diture. Sir E. DERING should support the modification of the income tax, as just in itself, and as in accordance with the feelings of the people. He deprecated the tone in which the alteration of the malt and house duties had been dis cussed, and denied that the former could be regarded by the agriculturists as any compensation for burdens to which they had been unjustly subjected, nor did he believe that much benefit could be derived from it except by the barley grower. But it was a step towards the enormous benefit which would be derived from total abolition, which also was the only reasonable mode of dealing with the hop duty. As regarded the house tax, it had been stated by Sir C. Wood that the increase would fall upon those who had hitherto been all but exempt from direct taxation. See ing no justification for this exemption, he should support the additional impost, which, however, might perhaps be modified in committee. He wished a different proposition as to Ireland, and one more in accordance with the princi ples of public credit. Sir J. GRAHAM then rose, along with several other members. For a moment it was doubtful who had posses sion of the floor, and the cries for the right hon. baronet became loud and general. The chairman having called upon him, he said—l cannot, sir, proceed to address you without saying that I shall endeavour to follow the ex ample of the hon. baronet the member for Kent, both in the tone and manner of addressing you. I am extremely obliged to you, sir, for calling upon me. lam never able to address the house with that perspicuity and self-posses. sion which I should desire ; but, having listened most at tentively to this protracted discussion, I am bound to say that the more I have listened, the more I have become be wildered with the confusion of the debate. (Hear.) I have listened to my hon. friend the member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) with great attention, and I am sorry to say, that I cannot understand the view which he is disposed to take on this occasion. (Laughter.) He says he is a great friend to direct taxation ; and yet, he says he altogether objects to the house tax ; and objecting to the house tax, he says he is very willing to diminish the exemptions of the house tax, and bring the limit down from 20/. to 10/. Again, my hon. friend says that he has the greatest possi ble regard for public credit, and an earnest desire to main tain the revenue of the country in a prosperous condition, and yet that he is willing to put an end to the duties from the customs and excise; that he would vote for the total re peal of the malt tax, and also for the total repeal of the as sessed taxes, and yet that his moderate views of direct taxation would lead him to impose only an additional duty of 1 per cent. on property and income, which he thought world be amply sufficient to make up the deficiency. (Laughter.) Now, in my opinion, it is a difficult matter to discuss one budget, especially one so large and ample as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought before us ; but, to add to the difficulty, my hon. friend the member for Montrose has brought forward another budget, including a scheme for capitalising income, and dealing with the income tax on a principle entirely different from that of the Government. But, again, I thought that we were to dis cuss the whole budget on the present occasion. Up to this evening I was distinctly under the impression that that wa s the issue which we were called upon to try ; but, in conse quence of a question which was put by the hon. and gallant member for Westminster (Sir D. L. Evans) in the early part of the evening, it appeared to mo that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was inclined more or less to change the issue. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The question im mediately before us, I distinctly understood, was this, — Shall we, or shall we not, as proposed in the present budget, consent to a proposition for doubling the house tax, and reducing the exemptions from 20/. to 10/. ? But, from the answer which was given to the question of the hon. and gallant member for Westminster, it appeared to me, unless I misunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. gentleman wished to convey to the house that it was of no importance whether'we agreed with ths Government with reference to tlio doubling of the • .f %fir A,,A4)?1 S INT ) rni ''''' --- ?4- ' ,-,,,-, --- -...;,-, ~.1 . I _ ' ~ , t7, 7 7"q:::>i 4 ;44. 1- 4. amount of the house tax or not ; and that what we wx*:.\ ~ , I, ; V-tt:7l ,_ called upon to do was to say "Aye" or " No" to the quka-e-4 . 0 - 7--,-- - '-' 47 7 tion with reference to the extension of the area of the ta,...,..Y.L:- , ,,, (Hear, hear.) Now, before proceeding further, I shoal q „Ella :Ai 'u''' 1... m ,. . . '' like to know w h e th er I am correc t i n suppos i ng that all we are asked to consent to at the present in the resolution we are now discussing is the extension of the house tax from 201. to 101.: and that we are not called upon to dis cuss the question of doubling its amount ? (Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The case stands thus :—The hon. and gallant gentleman the member for Westminster, without any communication with me, made a complaint, which had also been made before, that sufficient notice had not been given to the country of the measures of Government, nor sufficient time given to the house to deliberate upon them. Various representations were made to me from gentleman opposite, and also from some of my own friends, to the same effect, and it was sug gested as a proper thing that we ought to adjourn the de bate. When these representations were made to me, I did say that I thought gentlemen ought to take into consideration the position in which the Government were placed ; that, from a sense of duty, we had been forced to bring forward our budget at a period of the year exceed ingly inconvenient ; that we had not the slightest wish not to give the amplest opportunity to comprehend our mea sures, nor any wish to restrict the debate upon them ; but that we thought that, under all the circumstances, the house ought, as speedily as possible, to come to some con clusion on the subject. I also said privately, as I said to night publicly, that, as far as I was concerned, I had no objection to narrow as far as possible the issue, and to allow the vote to be taken, provided we could so agree, upon the first resolution, which the right hon. baronet will see con tains nothing with respect to the amount of the rate on houses ; but does contain a most important principle—viz., with respect to the area over which the tax should be ex tended. (Hear.) Sir J. GRAHAM—As I understand what has just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is his wish that _ _ we should not discuss the whole budget ; but that we should confine ourselves to the narrow question whether the area of the taxation under the House-tax Act should be extended or not. Now, up to the present time, we have been debating the whole of the budget. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) We have been challenged so to discuss it. (Renewed cheers.) Her Majesty's Government said distinctly that they would stand or fall by the judgment of the house—(continued cheers)—and upon that under standing, issue was joined upon a particular reso lution. Now, if the house will bear with me, I think I shall be able to show that it is impossible to narrow the issue to the question of the area of taxation only, inas much as the Government will have to encounter a deficit, at least in the second year, unless they are prepared to meet that deficit by augmenting the house tax. If I mis take not, the house tax, as levied at present, yields 700,000/. a year. The effect of extending the area, and bringing the exemptions down from 20/. to 10/., would be to levy only 150,000/. more ; so that, therefore, without doubling the tax, the effect of the proposed measure would be to yield the Exchequer a sum of only 850,000/. But the right hon. gentleman, in stating his balance for the year 18534, and looking also to 1854-55, took credit for 1,700,000/. as the produce of the house tax ; and for the first year he also took credit for 400,000/. from the Exche quer Loan Fund, of which I shall say more presently. The first year only one-half of the house tax comes to be levied, and that will leave a balance in his favour of only 50,000/. In the second year he will have only the addi tional sum arising from the house tax, and will be left with a deficit, by his own showing, of no less than 450,000/ Under these circumstances, is it possible for the Govern ment, with any regard to the credit or safety of the coun try, or provision for the public service, if they remit half the malt tax and the hop duty, and stand by their budget in every particular, to say that the augmentation of the house tax will be sufficient ? But I shall take the liberty of considering this budget in the manner in which I un derstood it was to be considered at the commencement of this debate. (Cheers.) And, although we have sat for some time during the present session, and, as to direct legislation not much fruit has been p ro d uce d as th e result of our sitting, yet I think our time has not been thrown away. We have made great progress—(hear)—and settled various matters concerning which there has been much controversy. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, by a large majority, we are agreed that unrestricted competition, or free trade, which the hon. mem b er f or th e West Riding has justly said is a shorter and more appropriate term—a Saxon term, I think he called it—(hear)—shall be hence forth the tile of our financial and commercial policy. (Hear, hear.) We have also decided by a very large majority that taxes henceforth shall not be imposed for the benefit of any particular interest, but for the pur pose of revenue, or, strictly speaking, that protection is by common consent abandoned. (Hear, hear.) Again, we are agreed that cheapness and abundance of food are the mainstays of the prosperity of the great body of the people of this country—(hear, hear)—and, further, it is our opinion, unequivocally expressed, that this is the result of recent legislation, and that this free trade policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will best enable the industry of this country to bear its burdens, and will most contribute to the welfare, contentment, and happiness of th e people. (Hear, hear.) That puts an end to a great contro versy—that is the real harvest of the seeds sown in the last six years—and it is admitted by almost common consent, certainly by an overwhelming majority, that these are the great principles now recognised for our future legis lation. (Hear, hear.) Now, I am bound to say that the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening his budget, dealt with a very important part of this matter in a way that was pfmiliarly satisfactory— L ibt" I)nu 9 l'itikif, — lie I COnsairei-ed" I wnsit wiis due in equity and justice to the classes which it was alleged had been in jured by the course of recent legislation. Those classes were the shipping interests of this country, the sugar growing colonies, and the landed interest ; and he said it was most desirable that all wars of classes should hence forth cease with reference to the question of taxation ; that what was equitable with regard to the past should now be done once for all ; that the good of the entire people should be the rule in laying taxes on the people of the country. And, sir, with reference to the shipping in terest, I entirely concur in the observations of the hon. member for Montrose. I think that the arrangement pro posed by the Government with reference to the shipping interest, that 100,000/. should be given in aid of peculiar burdens falling upon them, of which they have not been fully relieved, is an arrangement perfectly justified, and meets with my entire approbation. (Hear.) Having the honour of being a member of the Trinity-house, I am bound to say it should be remembered that since 1842 that corpo ration, by the awords of juries and arbitrations have had to pay 1,200,000/. for the purchase of lights, which were granted to private individuals, and yet that they have so managed their funds, that in the same pefiod their debt has been reduced from 1,200,000/. to only 112,000/. While, under the guidance of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, since 1849 they have increased the number of lights, at an expenditure of 115,000/. In respect, then, to the lighting, I think the arrangement is a provi dent arrangement, and worthy the sanction of the house. With respect to the passing tolls, also, I think they should not be a burden thrown on the shipping interest. As to pilotage, however, I should have thought my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, having this 1 subject distinctly before him, might on the part of the Government very safely have introduced a measure with out previous inquiry. My own belief is, that the exclu sive rights of the pilots of the Cinque Ports cannot be maintained, and I shouldhmie m t i h t o in u g gh t t be it fr m , sx ' right to introduce a measure nvi oulcldushivaovepb9ell leges ; but, upon the and as to whole, theproposition Govern ment upon that point,t heq o uestions f o t f he anch anchorage a l ng d ar o not ewnanti cipatewhichthe any and the salvag difference eof opinion.sh o ip f s,is one up 4s on colonies, I rejoice at the marked progress that has been made by them... At the closo of the last Parliament the right hon. gentleman, the secretary for the Colonies, ex pressed an earnest desire to deal with the descending scale, and to arrest its descent, so as to prevent the evils which he thought were resulting from it, and he said nothing but in ability to carry it prevented his making an attempt of the kind. It was predicted that the effect of the descent of the discriminating duty would show that free trade would not answer, and that protection would ultimately thrive. That prediction is not verified. I am extremely glad that the West Indian interest is to take a receipt in full of all de mands in the power of refining in bond ; but I should wish to hear, before the debate is closed, some answer to the speech of my right hon. friend the member for the Univer sity of Cambridge as to the effect upon our financial opera tions , by this very c oncess i on o f re fi n i ng i n b on d. If it ' to be optional, I understand that persons who have sugar in this country of an inferior quality will avail themselves of that privilege, and I have r eas on to believe, f they do, that 10 per cent, will be l os t t o the revenue bj i rthat would be con cession. One-half of the whole of the sugar duty_„,„„ and 2,000,000/., and 10 p er cen t. upon that is 200,000/.; ,uvut yet in the balance of the year the Chancellor:anyloss to the of the ., Ex chequer has not dealt with the question of revenue consequent upon the permission g iven to the West 1 Indian interest, and, therefore, apart from deductions for the remission of the ma lt tax and hop duty,all question of 200 000/ to bo lost by the permission to allow this sum of , • surplus will be converted into an his balance already, I think, vorging to a deficiency, if you refine in bond, the narrow Universityf Oxford" ' d the member for the o right hon. friend . his long experienc e , and his actual deficiency, and the warning, so well expressed by m y his independent station, .spotless character giving additional weight to that warning—shovving that it proceeded from a deep attachment to the public service, and making it tell with ten fold effect, w ould. be proved t o be but too well justified. I pass on rapidly to o th er topics we have made immense in ', s s a h n o d r t againti m o . l l say strides thihear all arguments about the transfer of local burdens discarded as obsolete. No longer is any stress laid upon them, and the right hon. gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer said, even as to the county rates, that if anything should be done as to their being trans ferred to the consolidated fund, it would be only Id. in the pound upon the rate, and that that would be so utterly insignificant he would no longer think of offering it. I very much doubt 'whether the remission of half the malt duty will be 10. in the pound. (Hear.) But I come to another point still more important. In my view an admission o f i mmense value has been ma d e. It is now distinctly stated by the Government, heretofore the advocates of the transfer of local burdens on account of injury to land, that the best security for the prosperity of the landed int eres t i s to be found in the welfare of the working classes, and in their prosperity ; that the landed interest seeks no l onger any benefit at the expense of the community, but i s sa ti s fi e d w ith the admission of that great truth that their prosperity is based on the welfare, happi ness, and contentment of the working classes. (Hear.) bee And that is illustrated by that which has prediction dieted under adverse circumstances, never refused my respondency, - o great body of consumers visions, and give abundance o t the thethat if you have cheap pre poor laws mainly falling of this country, the weight pidly diminish. (Hear, hear.) upon real property will rapidly statement of the right hon. gentleman And what was the Exchequer? I heard it with pleasure f the Chancellor of the from 1849 to 1852, the burden urden —that in the last three years, 25 rates had diminished per cent. It had fallen of the poor-ra from 6,000,• , 000/ to 4 800,000/., being an amount of relief of 25per cent. i to the landed nterest, mainly, and i n th e op i n i on thatreliefsatisfied allclaims of • ht hon. gentleman, of the rig the landed interest that might be made in the sh a pe of com pensation for past injury by the repeal of the corn laws and the freeimportation ("Hear, he ar ," a nd cries of o f corn. "No, no.") I am not merely stating my own o pinion ; I am dealing with the tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made as I think, with great ability, fairness, and perspicuity, and I refer to that statement to show, while there is much left on which Tao differ, hew m uch there is QA which we agree ti{ 7 .~~s 31 30 111 55 1 57 28 14i 26 33A 1063 41 I 1 IJ ary tho rao ras IS' / I Awm ~. .~'.~ y;_.~~ . ~, F~.:.