The Sun. — London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

RENTA L. 4 Prices ,rday. ii I°B 66 641 5-' 5 33, 1 100 Ices I 131 it; I 01 10 i ail jai 35) 1.51 ;p 251 ViA 1 41 , P 't 12i P ,1 191 v a P i 1 1A , P - P :4 4 4 P 1 1 P P , .1)j- xi suPP lf rp t .- h ,onge do t" bush' o'ro°,o . • ne'ob . " ,; lb ; c 1. 4 ro t/ 1, oP r russ 6- 0 0 J` ig eo 3d to ; °t" Cs o °sou ,t d ; 6r rots , bso Pe t t o Ls 6d6a to lots, re , Ay , 0 0 ° boo P°l 3 ,10_ trib loaf LLD. 1/14 wild s . es ch i di ttOt fl te 8 , 40 0, )hick P e t 'A )a Pe i ; o'o3 10 t- 1 , , 0 ,`P e ? ocicoc .- • 0 id to "' 0 oJ idge 1 00 too 30 0, u ow freoß )4,23' ,(00' "0 3; to 1 r tO' Pe 1 11 Od; C°a vrop r l , air ; p 6a, r o 0, c ol o l ,ot ch ; ° 00 0 0; ;0 s 9° do 0; pe r eivol P er 4 is wolk;1; b fi oro oey Os ; r lot s ls P e r ` , e t r 4 5 3 r 1 0°j, go r , cl°;j, 1 IP_L r 1 ~, 1, 01 1/E RIAL PARLIAMENT. _ I not, lOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.) the LORD CHANOELLoR took his seat on the woolsack le o'clo c k • 1111 e bake o f RICHMOND presented a petition from 1, 41 1 ea, complaining of colonial distress ; also a peti frora the farmers of Elgin, complaining of agricul tlitBtress, and praying the Government and Parlia -0 take steps for procuring a more plentiful supply A ll4llO manure ; also a petition from a gentleman, )e 4 , 3 ° ' hav ing entered the army in 1795, and served 52 }he}l,' had, in 1848, sold out, and settle d as a colonist frontiers of the colony of the Cape of Good k t Pe o i In this position he remained until the breaking the war there, when, his farm being laid waste, )41:0ek carried off by the Kaffirs, and himself and his 4 /Id : lavi ng escaped with great difficulty from their he was reduced to support himself as a day qe GEarl o f DESART ac k n owledged the hardship of el se, but s a id it w as impossible for her Majesty to ec ' t oPensation for such losses. IRISH TENANT RIGHT. Earl o f RODEN, r eferring to the proceedings in b. "I se of Lords on Tnesday night, with respe et to 4Te nant Right Bills of the Attorney-General of Ire and Mr. Serjeant Shee, both of which were then a second time, and referred together to a Select ' t ee, asked the noble lord at the head of the Go `lll nient whether, if unhappily the Select Committee }: 1114 sanction the principle of the latter bill, bet ter N r' , lllt h asMr. Sharman Crawfurd's Tenant Rig ht Bill, tip; had been rejected twice before as a bill, the prin- W o f which was entirely subversive of the rights of her Majesty's Government were prepared to PPort - the measure and carry it into law. The Earl of DERBY said that his attention had been t e 'l to this subject by a number of Irish represen iti4°eB, who shared the views and misappreh ensions of n oble , friend. A ft er paying a compliment to the Nand ability of the Attorney-General for Ireland, he k r i'llat the attention of the Government had been hi e l lg the recess, directed towards framing measures should have the effect of developing the re eeg and encouraging the employment of capital 4 1N e land, the result of which had been four mea lu,'_ which had been laid before the House C ommons and which stood for second reading th e evening in question. It happened that a bill had jcit introduced by Mr. Serjeant Shee, on the same sub the fi rst o f th e G overn ment bills—Tenant Right k ih li A t ,founded on an entirely different principle. A fter th,i.uebate, it was thought by the House of Commo ns It would be the fairer course if both these bills should th n t ; s e rred together to a select committee, which wo uld tio f a ve the advantage of having under its considera ‘ '`'e different manner in which the same subject was te re "tTi by t wo gen tlemen starting from an entirely dif 40Ilt Point. At the same time it was distinctly under tir, that in consenting to the second reading o f this ,s, , t was merely taken pro forma, and that no , Whatever was given to the principle of the bill. kt , ord Derby) thoug ht that the course taken by the G 'tBe )/i u , of Commons was, upon the whole , so und and tri e j for his own part, he was as opposed as his noble thia", to the principles of the bill of Mr. Sergean t Shee, 5 1 6,'"ng it was destructive of the rights of property ; and Part of her Majesty's Government, ho could as ute noble earl, that whatever might be the report of i e eomnittee, no sanction would be given by her Ma -4s Govern ment to the passing of such a bill. (Hear.) With a Earl of WICKLOW said he was quite satisfied t eh , the explanation given by the noble earl, but he was L 7 flinch surprised that a Government which had ih ti ght forw ar d a measure of its own on the subject 14 4 hav e seem ed even to sanction the principle of th r a bill as Mr. Soijeant Shee's by allowing it to go a second reading. a°tho Earl of DERBY said the opinion of the hig hest "rity In the other house had been taken and it was th e th effect that not assented be understood to be give . n Wag e Principle of a bill, when it was understood that it °ray rea d a second time pro forma. tl i '' f ter a few remarks from the Earl of ST. GERMAINS, QsubJect dropped. 4; Pio motion of the Earl of DESAUT, the West India ti liae -Il les Loans Act Amendment Bill was read a second e e i l the motion of Lord COLCHESTER, the Commo ns T heir Bill was read a second time. ell' Lordships then adjourned. 0 0 I , I, II °ITSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. "e SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. fir J PETITIONS. t Nte WALMSLEY presented a petition from Lei -11o„, r against the reduction of the duties on malt an d t teh r B ;,.also a petition from a building society in the me - Ces against the increase of the house duty. ki t ; J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Ax ekte r, praying that the probate and legacy duties be hid to reaLproperty in auhrtitution of the increased i , t ax. 11 0 11° I . t , MULGRAVE presented a petition from Scar against the proposed house tax. Ph.„ t • COLLIER presented a similar petition from li ."`eouth. k k , - _%'• MACGREGOR presented a petition, numerously i ti ,„7, l , from the Reform Association of Glasgow, pray t4l‘lat the commercial policy of 1846 may be main of - tis e u and carried out; and, that as doubling the amount t o r inhabited house duty, would prove a serious in n to the inhabitants of large town s, the house 4 4 - rci not consent to passing that impost; and as re fellg the tax on malt and hops to one-half, would con benefit on the consumer ; that the house should 44 44 , take into its consideration the expediency of teeing the taxes upon knowledge. %s t i r ' READLAM presented a petition from New their against the taxes on newspapers. J. V. SHELLEY presented a petition against 1 4e Propositions contained in the Budget, respecting the t ease of the house and income taxes. th e r . T. DUNCOMBE presented several petitions from eletrop o ll s against the proposals in the Budget. B. HALL presented a petition from a meeting at tzta.erYlehone, against the proposed house tax, and the iql B ion of the income tax. d r . WILKINSON presented a petition from Lam til! Praying for the extension of the legacy and probate es to real property. to r Z . W. COWPER presented a petition from Hert km'ibire, against the extension of the income tax. l e u l t • W. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Lam against the increase of the house tax. Pi i i i ° r4 R. GROSVENOR presented a petition from ta.,,,_ a ra, against the extension of the house and income it. 16 . M. GIBSON presented a petition from Manches tbi.) P r aYing that the reduction of the tea duties be spread ; 1 ' tw o or t h ree , instead of six years. to v „, 4 l s tain SCOBELL presented a petition from Camden cikl,", Praying for the interference of the house in the of Edward Murray. 1.1 z ,Z,W. CLAY presented a petition fr om the Tower th lets against the house tax and other p ro p osals in „ - nud ge t. M. MILES presented a petition f rom Pontefract, 1 4 ORt the i n h a bited house duty. lan d t • G. HUDSON presented a petition from Sunder t~e the proposed house tax, and in favour of total repeal of the malt duties. REDUCTION OF THE TEA DUTIES. In , reply to Mr. FAGAN, L e , CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it " th e intention of the Government, if the resolution threting the reduction of the tea duties was pa ssed, ~such reduction should take place forthwith, and', naer these circumstances, they should not feel it thei r t a ,, t3 ", to recommend any drawback on the stock in t he „." of dealers. r• MOFFATT asked the Chancellor of the Exche ker' Whether it was the intention of Government to of foreign as well as colonial sugar to the p rivile g e do fining in bond ; and also, whether it was t he inten opii ° I Government that the refining in bond s hall be tee i al, or whether it would be compulsory upon all refi ne so as to constitute an uniform system. ea e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he tw ll ° reason why any distinction should be made . be . - l e e n foreign and colonial sugar, respecting any privi v4bee, which the Government intended to accord. It to 4 however be recollected that he stated, in regard kir theserefining Privileges, that the Government were in favour b s id e , - ,,,g 4 ing in bond on certain conditions which they con necessary for the security of the revenue. He ti o 6 "ren directions for the preparation of these condi tollB, thehen completed he would make them known tile. sir THE BUDGET. %. T • V. SHELLEY intimated that he would with -114,. his motion for deferring the consideration of the lut• -e t sa until after Christmas, having found that it was ir • °T ul r eply to Sir J. V. Salmi; it The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said hil t not his intention to propose any drawback o n the imt duties. sir NEW SOUTH WALES. MOLESWORTH asked the Secretary of h er e for the Colonies, whether it was the intention of v-ajesty' s G overnmen t t o t a k e a ny steps to comply h th e prayer of the petition which was presented to Nee douse of Commons from the Legislative Council of 2, e : South Wales, during the last session, by the takOary for Ireland. er 3- • PAKINGTON said, the Government had sensethe p e ti t i on i n t o cons id era ti on , w ith a full tr a i of the growing importance of the Ans i/I,n. Colonies, and the extraordinary circumstances on the they were now placed, and they had decided to bl e extent to which they thought concessions ought fiat r inat ley and as to the policy to be adopted for the e; but the hon. baronet must feel that it was impos lnetetibr him to enter into a general and detailed state ti 7. 1. what thei r i n t en ti ons were in answer to a ques da° °I that kind. H owever , he hoped to find an early 1 , 0 3 1 ; after Christmas, on which to state to the house the CoZ er the Government in regard to the Australian kr AK A POST OFFICES. ter ; --1 - 4, -. CGREGOR moved for returns of the num . - td.°l. P ost -office receiving-houses in London, Dublin, 4, i4 luburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester, re ,liv;ely ; the number of collections daily from each f ekC il g - liouse and the proportion of the population o 0 the ft 04c00, as per last census, bears to each . _ ,, .r t e ._ THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING , DECEMBER II, 1852. receiving-house whether general Post -office business can be transacted at all these receiving-houses, and, if , the number in each place at which that can be transacted showing the proportion the population of each place bears to every such receiving-house or branch-office; the number of offices in each place at which money order business can be transacted, and the proportion the population of each place bears to every such office ; the average number of letters delivered daily in each of the above-mentioned towns ; also the number of letter carriers in each town to deliver these letters, and also the number of deliveries daily in each town : And of the name of every one employed in the Post office of Glasgow ; the number of years each person has been in the service : salary- of each, and sums, if any, derived from fees, stating the nature of such fees ; na ture of the duties performed by each ; whether there is a scale of salaries for length of service, and, if so, the particulars of it ; showing the highest salary that can be obtained by length of service only, and the time to be served to obtain that salary ; whether there is a super annuation allowance ; gross revenue of the office for each of the last ten years, including amount of postage stamps sold through the Stamp-office ; number of letters for one week of each month in each year for a like pe riod ; number :and amount of money orders paid and issued in each of the last ten years ; also the commission in each year ; number of clerks employed in each year. distinguishing the number engaged in each department. Agreed to. REGISTRATION OF LANDS. Mr. COWPER gave notice that on! Monday next he should move for leave to bring in a bill for the Registra tion of Land Sales. THE BUDGET. On the order of the day for going into committee on Ways and Means, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the house was placed in a most extraordinary position. For his own part, his own constituents were not anxious that the house should go into committee at all on the Government statement ; and perhaps he should be called factious for doing his duty on this occasion. But he had been called factious by every Government that existed for some years—(a laugh)—and it should not deter him from doing his duty now. (Hear, hear.) The fact was, neither he nor his constituents wanted the budget of the Government—(a laugh)—and therefore he should move that they do not go into committee. (Hear, hear.) He thought that was the best and most proper course to take, seeing that the right honourable gentleman. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that a deci sion upon one of his resolutions was to be considered a decision upon the whole, and therefore any decision to be come to ought to be arrived at before they got into committee. (Hear.) No equivalent whatever was given for the doubling of the house tax ; for while the tax payer was treated with an extra cup of tea or a pot of beer a-week, he was to have his other burthens doubled. (A laugh.) He would not stand t his ; and in spite of being considered as doing that which would hurt the feelings of the Government, he must oppose the Budget without more ado. (A laugh.) The house had been told that the window tax was repealed from sanitary mo tives ; but it was no such thing. For thirty years public were opposed to it, and it was not until the Go vernment of the day was satisfied that it could be main tained no longer that it was repealed. (Hear, hear.) It would be a waste of time to discuses the question of the honse tax ; and if there was to be a vote of no confidence taken, the proper time for doing it was now, before go ing into committee. (Hear, hear.) He should therefore move that the Speaker do not leave the chair. (Hear.) The amendment having been seconded, Mr. WALTER said he should vote for the amend ment, but at the same time he denied that this question ought to be taken as a vote of want of confidence. There was no parallel between the case of the present Government and that of Sir Robert Peel in 1841 ; there was no deficit in the revenue, but, on the contrary, there was a surplus, and consequently there was no necessity for doubling the house tax. (Cheers.) He did not object to the house tax in the abstract, but the necessities of the country did not require its being doubled, and the proposal of the Government ought to be abandoned. (Hear, hear.) Mr. ALCOCK was opposed to doubling the house tax, but was decidedly in favour of the proposed repeal of the malt tax and the tea duties, and he should be sorry to see the present Government defeated. (Hear, hear.) He was for repealing the whole of the Malt Tax ; but rather than get nothing, he was quite willing to ac cept of half ; and he was disposed on that account to continue his support to the Government. (Hear, hear.) It was as unjust to tax malt as to tax coals ; and for the sake of the consumer, he demanded that the malt tax should at once be repealed. (Hear, hear.) It could be done without doubling the house tax, by either extend ing the income tax or the probate and legacy duty to real property ; and he called upon the Government totake that course. At present the income tax was only paid upon 12,000,0001., whereas it ought to be paid upon 400,000,0001. He was quite ready to extend the income tax to the poor man with 12s. a-week, at the rate of 3 per cent., provided Government was ready to abandon all the indirect taxations that were levied upon articles of daily consumption. Nor was he opposed to extending the income tax to Ireland—indeed he was informed Ire land was anxious for it—(a laugh)—and he did not won der at it, when he fremembered the saving her people would have a right to claim in the shape of a remission of indirect taxation. Why, at present they were paying taxes at the rate of 20 or 30 per cent. instead of three, and the sooner the house agreed to abandon this vicious system of taxation, the better it would be for all parties. (Hear, hear.) Sir E. B. LYTTON would not follow the hon. gentle man through all the points on which he had touched. It was true the whole subject of the budget was before the house, but he should not advert to those parts on which they were generally agreed— such, for instance, as the measures connected with the colonial or shipping interest, with which others were far more competent to deal than himself. With respect to the income and property tax, the question was so large in itself, and, with the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Montrose, became so complicated by the variety, not only of its details, but also of its principles, that it would be impossible to discuss it fairly except upon some later occasion specially set apart for the purpose. But, as the main exception to the budget had been taken upon the proposed extension of the area of that tax, it was as well the country should be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as its extension was concerned, had acted, not in harsh, but in mitigated conformity with all the most valuable evidence taken before the committee upon the proposed property and income tax, and in conformity with that unquestioned champion of all the industrious classes, the hon. member for Mon trose. (Loud cheers.) He would not touch upon the question raised the other night by the right hon. mem ber for the University of Oxford as to how far the speech of Mr. Pitt could induce the house to believe that it would be a fraud upon the property of the fundholder to diminish the tax upon incomes derived from profits. (Hear, hear.) He took it for granted that they were agreed that they could no longer tax in the same degree an income which, without a fault of his own, a man might lose to-morrow, and an income which a man de rived from the capital he enjoyed during life, and which he might, perhaps, bequeath to his children. (Hear, hear.) But this suggested matter for serious considera tion ; for they had heard the other night speeches of two gentlemen so pre-eminent in that house, that one or other must be a leading member of any Administration which could replace the present—the speech of the right hon. member for the University of Oxford, in which he de clared that the distinction they wished to enforce would be positive dishonesty, and the speech of the noble lord the member for London, in which he declared his sense of the great danger that would arise if they departed from the primciple of the income tax as established by successive Parliaments. This was matter for reflection ; and this question suggested itself upon it, " How far would it be desirable to destroy the first Government which sought to establish a distinction so important to the industrious portion of their constituents, and trust that principle to the divided counsels or uncertain purpose of any Go vernment likely to succeed ?" (Hear, hear.) Now he came to the staple question before the house—he meant the indirect duties weich they proposed to reduce, and the direct house tax, which they proposed to double. He must say that if any philanthropist were to desire to confer some special boon upon the industrious classes, the duties upon malt and tea were precisely those which he would select ; and, though he had seen it stated that it would have been better to have preferred the reduction of some other Excise duty than that of malt, such as paper, or soap—(hear, hear, from a portion of the Oppo sition) —yet that was said by the very party who had always contended that the first articles which should be chosen for a reduced duty were those which affected the physical sustenance of the people ; and, though some learned chemists had told us of sawdust being a good sub stitute for potatoes, they had never induced the people to eat paper or drink soap. (A laugh.) His hon. friend the member for Montrose had saidmost forcibly upon a former debate on the malt tax, that to whatever source the went for revenue they ought not to take it from the beverage of the working man. "He had cheap bread and cheap beef," said his hon. friend, "why not cheap beer ?" (Hear, hear.) That was a sentiment worthy of his hon. and respected friend. (Hear, hear.) But a Chancellor of the Exchequer was not actuated by bene volence alone. Ile could only indulge in philanthropy as a political economist ; and therefore in the selection of duties to reduce he would look to those in which he could remove the obstacles to commercial energies which re produced national wealth. Therefore he would select the tea duty, because it tended at least to augment the trade with China, and to promote the interchange of our goods, Directly, it was a benefit to the consumer ; in directly, it was a benefit to Manchester and to d Liverpool, and to our merchants an d manufacturers ; an the coun try gentlemen sincerely rejoiced to think so. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side of the house.) Now let them look at the malt tax, because it was impossible to have heard the speech of the hon. member for Nottingham, and the cheers which followed it, dto see what was written and spoken out of doors, not to per ceive that it was the reduction of the malt-tax which formed so prominent a feature in the eyes of hon. gen tlemen opposite. Did not the reduction of the malt du ties rest pr ecisely upon the same principle as the reduc tion of the: tea duties? (Hear, hear.) He must grant that we die not obtain anything like the same proper, tionate advantage from the abolition of half the tax as we should from its total repeal. He granted that there still was retained all the costly and vexatious machinery of the Excise, and that by retaining one half of the tax we did still cripple the farmer in the direction of his capital, the fattening of his cattle, and the nature of the grain which he should produce. Rut what then ? It was a bold step in the right direction. But, considering the state of the revenue, and, what upon his side of the house never were forgotten, the claims and interests of other parties, he must frankly tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that so long as any revenue was drawn from that duty; so long was the farmer impeded in the direction of his industry and capital, and so long the country party would endeavour to obtain, through the means of free trade, fair and impartial treatment for the farmer. Still, he submitted to his hon. friend the member for North Yorkshire, and to those who agreed with him, as he (Sir E. B. Lytton) did, in desiring the total repeal of the malt duty, that at least this advantage would be gained, that as he diminished the amount of the tax, so he lessened the great financial difficulty of getting rid of it altogether. Supposing it were doubted what benefit the proposed measure would be to the far mer, no man could be absurd enough to deny that the abolition of half the tax would cheapen the price of beer, and that no monopoly of brewers could altogether defeat the intention of the Legislature in the face of public opinion. If, indeed, such an attempt should be made, all would unite in order to procure a different system of licensing. (Hear, hear.) He remembered that the hon. member for Derby, a great authority upon this subject, an eminent brewer and a Reformer, had brought forward the reduction of half this tax, and had distinctly stated that the effect would be to give good beer to the people at a much more moderate price. He (Sir E. B. Lytton) thought he might fairly calculate the reduction in the retail price of the superior kinds of beer at id. per quart. (" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Since the budget had been propounded, he had taken the op portunity of speaking to some persons eminent in the trade, and he had been informed by them that such would be the consequence. (Oh.) At all events, let hon. gentlemen remember their own arguments upon the corn laws—that though they could not say to what extent the repeal would lower' the price of bread, all they could do was to legislate in such a way that the price ought to be reduced. (Hear.) The reduction of this tax, therefore, was directly a benefit to the con sumer, and indirectly.to the farmer, just as the reduc tion of the tea duty was a benefit directly to the con sumer and indirectly to the merchant and manufacturer. To show how this would benefit the farmer, he would read a short extract from that great authority upon finance and free trade, Mr. M'Culloch. That gentle man said, that though the malt tax fell directly on the consumer -1- "Still, however, it must be admitted that it is indi rectly especially injurious to the agriculturist . . . Supposing a high duty were laid on calicoes and broad cloths, is it not clear that it would be a serious injury to the manufacturers affected by it? In fact, a duty of 3d. a square yard was imposed previously to 1831 upon all printed cottons, which, like the duty on malt, fell directly on the consumer ; but it was notwithstand ing, shown that it was indirectly most injurious to the producer well-founded representations, the duty on printed cot tons, which produced 600,000/. a year, was repealed in 1830, and the subsequent increase of the trade has sufficiently testified the policy of the measure. The case of the malt duty is precisely analogous ; and most part of the statements that were made to show the pernicious effects of the duty on printed cottons over the manufacturer might, 'mutatis mutandis, be applied to illustrate the influence of the malt tax over agri culture." It might be said that that would go only to prove the advantage of the total repeal ; but subsequently Mr. M'Culloch, despairing of the possibility of the total re peal, suggested the proposition then before the house of the reduction of the duty by one-half. (Loud cheers.) Well, but because this question was accompanied in directly with benefit to the farmer, and with a double house tax, they were told that it was a question of town against country. No, it was a question of free trade against restriction—a question whether they would re fuse to lower the price of an article of popular suste nance, and remove some restrictions upon industry and capital, because the measure was accompanied by a direct tax, which all political economists had recommended, even if there were no malt tax. (Hear, and Oh ! from the Opposition.) He suspected that what deprived the reduction of the malt tax of all benefit in the eyes of honourable gentlemen was precisely the reason that ought to induce them to prefer it, because it removed some weight from that class which had the most cause to apprehend competition. If it were to inflict some hardship upon the farmer, and all the country were banded against it, then, probably, the measure would rise in the eyes of honourable gentlemen, and all the talk would be of the selfishness of squires and farmers, who refused to cheapen beer to their poor countrymen. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh !) Better at once assert the doctrine, that because the farmer considered he was partially distressed, he should not therefore be im partially relieved, and, because there was unrestricted competition, he still should be restricted in the manu facuture of his barley ? (Hear, hear.) Now, what was barley ? The very grain for which England was most famous. In wheat we were surpassed, or, at all events, equalled. In barley we were unrivalled ; yet that un rivalled crop was specially selected to be obstructed and discouraged by impediments in the way of the employ ment of industry in its own natural direction. This made it the more injurious to the farmer, and it was a most precise and elaborate rejection of one of the most fertile sources of revenue which Providence had bestowed on this country. If gentlemen opposite did not object so much to the reduction of the malt tax, though, per haps, they might prefer its total repeal, yet, they ob jected to substitute a tax upon the householder for the benefit of the farmer ; but that was only saying, in other words, that they objected to the further extension of the principles of free trade. (Hear.) Well, now, what was it that they objected to in. the house tax ? Did they object to the tax itself ? They could hardly do that, be cause it was a tax which had been specially selected by their own authorities as one which they thought might be justly extended almost indefinitely. Mr. Mill said that of all taxes the house tax was one of the fairest, because it fell upon a man in proportion to his establishment. Mr. M'Culloch anticipated the very measures before the house, for he advised the reduction of the tea-duties, and the malt tryx one-half, and the imposition of a house tax ; and this lAA, too, at a time when the window tax still existed. (Hear, hear.) The only point worthy of con sideration which had been thrown out by hon. members opposite, was that which had been suggested by the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). The principle on which he proceeded appeared to be this—indirect taxes were to be reduced, and a direct tax was necessary to make up the deficiency ; what would be the best to adopt ? The hon. member suggested that instead of a house tax they should impose a legacy duty on realised property. Now, he (Sir Bulwer Lytton) would frankly own that the feeling out of doors on this subject was so strong and so reasonable, that if they continued the legacy duties they would, sooner or later, be obliged to extend them to all property whatever. He granted, then, that. Now, he begged them. to grant them this : What tax was least objection able ? He would show them that on all principles the tax which they proposed was more objectionable than the one before the house. Not only almost all economists, but all educated men, were agreed that taxes ought to fall, not upon capital, but expenditure. When they laid a tax upon a man's expenditure, they stimulated him to a course of saving, as it were, in order to make up the amount of the tax collected ; but when a tax fell upon capital, this stimulus was not given, the deficiency was not repaired, and the loss was one which fell to be deducted from the wealth of the nation. But, of all taxes upon capital, the worst was that which directly taxed the ca pital itself ; and, therefore, Mr. Ricardo had singled out the legacy duty for unqualified condemnation. Mr. Ri cardo argued thus—Suppose 1,0001. were left to him as a legacy, and 1001. of it were taken from him by way of duty, he should consider that he had got a legacy of 9001. only, and should have no particular motive to make up for the loss by a reduction of expenditure. But if he received a legacy of 1,0001., and 1001. were afterwards taken from him in the name of various taxes, such as those upon houses, horses, wines, servants, &c., the result would in all probability be that he would decrease his ex penditure to that amount, and the national wealth would remain unimpaired. So that the legacy duty was a tax bad upon principle—bad, indeed, upon all the principles founded on by hon, members opposite, and surely it would not be wise to increase so bad a tax. And when it was proposed to increase the stamp duty upon the transfer of landed property, he would ask hon. members to consider who the landlords were whose taxation it was thus proposed to increase ? Were they a body of Leviathans, wallowing in wealth ? On the contrary, it had been proved that throughout the country their incomes did not exceed on the average 150/. a-year ; and, as this would of course include many whose incomes were much lower than 1501., would they it right to lay the screw upon those small pro prietors ? Seeing, therefore, that they had no other tax except the house-tax which was approved of on every kind of principle, and by all the political economists, what was their objection to it? They objected to it either because of the extension of the area,—the bring ing it down to 101. householders,—or because of the doubling of the tax. With respect to the extension of the area, no man, he thought, could deny that the same principle which was applied to the income and property tax should be applied even more rigidly to the tax upon houses. They should only exempt the wages of unskilled labour, or cases in which it would be unsafe or impossible to collect the tax. But, then, they had been told this tax was to interfere with and in jure the electoral franchise. That was a very grave consideration— (cheers) ;—but there was before the house a consideration yet more grave, and it was this :—The 101.-householders formed the most important portion of the electoral constituency, and it became a matter of very great danger if that class which could exercise so great an influence over all the taxation of that house, should stand altogether exempted—(cheers from the Ministerial side)—from a tax which they had the power to inflict upon other classes. (Cheers.) Now, if the house re solved to sanction and enforce that principle—a prin ciple by which all the ancient republics were at first corrupted and then destroyed—they sanctioned the principle which justified the people of France in their preference of an absolute Government —they sanctioned a confiscation of property for the benefit of numbers. He would now say one word as to the farmers, so far as they were concerned. He wished gentlemen could dis miss from their minds that spectre which they called " compensation," for, if compensation wer e sought for in the reduction of half the malt tax, it would in deed be a most miserable dole, unworthy of that House of Commons. But he would grant the re lief was not delusive—that it was a real and prac tical relief to agriculture, and that he would show, if the house were in committee on the subject. The relief was real, though it was not large ; but it was not always the amount of relief given, but the mode and spirit in which it was given—(cheers)—which tended to allay disaffection and to reconcile the sufferers to that crisis which the change of the national policy might compel them to undergo. They felt that when they had to deal with Ireland. One Government might do a little more than another to remove the difficulties which beset that country, but it was the animus—the desire to do something—which made all the difference between the Government the people were prepared to approve and the Government they were led to detest. The same was the case with the British Parliament. They were all moved by their feelings. Men were not mere leathern bags or strong boxes, but living beings; with blood in their veins, and hearts in their bosoms, who could appreciate kind attentions, and he did entreat the house not to deal with a great class of their fellow countrymen as if they were their enemies. They were not only political economists, but English citizens, and, supposing that all agricultural distress was unreal: and exaggerated—supposing that the farmers were the only persons in the world who were never without gold in their pockets—it could not be denied that they believed they were distressed. They asserted they had been in jured, and that impression tended to produce disaffec tion, and it was wise, as a matter of policy, to remove such an impression from the minds of a large body of the people. What was the character of the class to whom he referred ? They were the very men among whom in times of danger, and in the case of war, this country had hitherto found that chief defence of nations which consisted in fervent loyalty and love for their native soil. (Cheers.) It was seldom that the removal of disaffec tion could be purchased at too dear a rate, but now, when they could purchase it so cheaply, and at a positive benefit to the community, how could they hesitate ? (Hear, hear.) But the fact was that behind all these questions there pressed another which forced itself upon the irresistible consideration of the house. He was the last person to impute to hon. gentlemen opposite a single factious or unworthy motive, but when they had been so severe upon the inconsistencies of hon. gentlemen on his (the Ministerial) side of the house, he might be al lowed respectfully to ask whether consistency of princi ple, independently of party, had been precisely that virtue of which hon. gentlemen opposite had set the ex ample ? (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Hon. gen tlemen opposite first demanded from the Government a recognition of free trade as the guide of their future policy, and, no sooner was this concession made, than the gravamen of all the charges made by hon. gentlemen opposite against the Government was that very conces sion. (Hear, hear.) Surely never before did men who were in earnest for a principle evince so much anger at having it conceded 1 (Cheers and laughter.) Yet now, having specially invited the Government, by the resolu tion of his hon. friend the member for Wol verhampton (Mr. Villers), to consent to a further ex tension of free trade, when measures in that direction were prepared, and accompanied by a direct tax so sound in its principle that not a single political economist could be produced against it, hon. gentlemen opposite seemed disposed to prevent those measures from being carried out for the benefit of the country. (Hear, hear.) It was wholly impossible to describe this inconsistency to paltry motives, but he ascribed it only to that honourable ambition which induced hon. gentlemen opposite to wish to substitute for the present Adminis tration a Government composed of men whom they pre ferred. (Cheers and laughter.) He wished, before he sat down, to say a very few words with reference to the great body of gentlemen on his side of the house, whose adhesion to free trade had not been very graciously re ceived. It was the opinion that he had always enter tained with regard to the total repeal of the corn laws, which had gradually enstranged him from a party to which he had always belonged, and to which he might say, without presumption, that he had rendered some trifling service, and among which he still recognised, not only private friends, but politicians of spotless in tegrity and of consummate talent and experience. (Hear, hear.) But it was not upon that single question alone that'he had made the transfer of his very humble support to the party and the policy represented by the present Government. He did not do so while the late Administration lasted. (Hear.) He did not do so until that Administration —he did not wish to say it with offence—died from its own exhaustion (a laugh) ; not until the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), look ing around at the state of parties, could see no other statesman but Lord Derby whom he could suggest to her Majesty as his successor (Hear, and cheers) ; and the condition of affairs at home, and, still more, abroad, induced him (Sir E. Lytton) to believe that it might be for the welfare, and perhaps for the safety of the coun try, to give Lord Derby's Government a fair and a cor dial trial. (Cheers.) He had done so with a full allowance for all the difficulties the Government would have to encounter, and with a firm belief that it would be right to consider the case of the class in which long continued distress had produced a deep-seated sense of injustice, with that deference to public opinion which Lord Derby had frankly expressed as soon as he entered upon office. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He (Sir E. Lytton) must say that in that school in which he had learned constitutional liberty it never was considered a disgrace for a Minister of England to regulate, not in deed his private doctrines, but his political measures, according to the opinions of the time (hear, hear, from the Ministerial side), and he certainly had not expected to hear such a principle objected to bythe leaders of a party who had threatened to change the constitution itselfin order to bring Parliament still more under the influence of the popular control. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The course which had been taken by the Government had certainly confirmed his expectations ; and he now tendered his support to them, not on any party conside rations, but simply in consequence of the disposition they had evinced to propose general measures for the improve ment of the laws, and for advancing the welfare of the people. He did not allude merely to the reforms of the Court of Chancery, nor to the programme of useful mea sures announced in her Majesty's gracious speech, nor even to the measures now before the house, sincerely as he approved of them ; but he looked also to the liberal and enlightened speech of the Chancellor of the Exche quer the other evening. He then heard for the first time a pledge from a Minister of the Crown for economy and retrenchment, and the implied promise of a large admin istrative reform. He saw in that speech a capacity to deal with one of the most complicated of all social question—that connected with criminal punishments — (hear, hear) ; he saw a general understanding of what he conceived to be the great want of this time, for he di s posed to favour a policy which, while it would be be lieved that the great bod conse rvative of the great principles of the constitution, y of the intelligent public were would still effect valuable and practical reforms. (Rear, hear.) The Government had shown already, by such measures and by such sentiments, that they did not come into office as the exclusive advocates of a single class, or the supporters of a retrograde policy (hear, hear), and the more they co u ld mitigate the sufferings of any class, whether commercial or agricultural, the more worthy they would be of the support of the House of Commons, to which every section of the community that contributed to the supplies had the right to come for the redress of grievances. (Cheers.) If they could so contrive that no large portion of our producers should be excluded from that prosperity which reigned before their eyes, the more they would unite all classes and interests to co operate with them in that calm and continuous progress in which it was the duty of every Minister to guide the people of this country in the highest ranks of European civilization. His desire to support the measur es which had been proposed for their own intri ns ic merits was in creased by the satisfaction o f thi n king that his one vote among many might serve to continue the present Govern ment in its career of useful and liberal legislation. All the causes of dissension which before rendered a Ministry constituted of gentlemen now on the opposite benches so weak in spite of the honesty, virtue, and genius presided over it, still continued to exist, and in his mind would still prevent that un i ty an d fi r mness of purpose acrdo of the ineffective, menw h comp osed, and of the pre mier who which would alone render effectual the desire Of the late Ministry to remove abuses, and which would alone pre serve--perhaps against th e a tt ac k s o f their own ablest su pporters—that balance between safe reforms and hazardous experiments, on which, in his conscience, ho believed we must depend for the continuance of our pros perity and for the stability of this empire. (Loud and protracted cheering.) Mr. GLADSTONE said that he should have been sorry to deprive the hon. baronet who had just sat down of the satisfaction of knowing that he had widened the question at issue—that, passing from the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, he had entered into a detailed discussion of all the most important items in the Budget, and then entered into an elaborate and elo quent defence of the Government of which he was not a member, and a spirited vindication.of his own character, which was impugned by no man. (Cheers and laughter.) But, on the part of the house and on the part of the principles which regulated the conduct of public business, he oould not refrain from pointing out, that if the house really intended to make progress towards a decision upon the measures before them, it was im portant, at whatever sacrifice of their own orate (aeasluraugesh)in their natural order. —to approach the con rsoii de n ae t isr h a a tPi t ree g n 7o es u sf n e d sts , ht h ns e es— entirely declined with his hon. friend that ththe t hvote no member e for Nottingham, beforetting ham , to accede to the doctrine them was to be understood as a vote of confidenc e or no con fidence in the Govern ment. It might suit the conven ience of person s or of parties—sometimes the one and sometimes the other— to attach to discussions respecting the taxation of the people the character of confidence or no confidence de bates ; but nothing could more tend to corrupt the House of Commons than to allow its decision for or against the public taxes to be so influenced. He had ever held that the primary duty of the house, its highest, and, perhaps, its elementary, certainly its most ancient and most im portant duty, was to provide the means required for carrying on the public service ; and they could not arrive at a safe conclusion as to what would be the best for the public service, if they were thus to be diverted from the intrinsic merits of the proposi tion before them. The question now before them was, whether or not they should entertain the financial propositions of the Government, and then to pro ceed to consider them in committee in their proper order. After what had taken place on Tuesday, it was impossible for to refuse to go into committee ; and he, therefore, could not support the hon. member for Fins bury. But, if he consented to go into committee, he did so under protest, and that for two reasons. The first was, that for the first time within his recollection a budget had been presented to them on the part of the Government, in which he presumed to say it was not professed to provide for the service of the year one single farthing beyond what was necessary to meet the ex- penses. (Hear). The right hon. gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, it was true, had purported to show, in the figures he submitted to the house, a surplus of 400,000/. ; but that 400,0001., which he applied to the services of the year, was (not money raised for the ser vice of the yew:, It was simply so much debt. In former years, money had been borrowed for the purpose of lend ing it for ryablic works, and when that money came in again, wliat ought to be done with it ? It was a ques tion lye was ashamed to ask. (Cheers.) The money borrowed for public works ought, when returned, to be aprAied to the extinction of the debt incurred for those pablic works ; but instead of that, the right hon. gentle man applied this 400,0001. of debt so repaid to the ser vice of the year, and was by it enabled to show a surplus of 400,0001. He protested again, that he thought it the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to submit a scheme of estimates to provide for the services of the year beyond the minimum which 'those services required. On a former evening he took the liberty of requesting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the obser vations which he (Mr. Gladstone) then made. The right hon. gentleman, however, did not think fit to do so, but gave a negative answer upon the spot. That an swer rendered it necessary for him (Mr. Gladstone) to state afresh the grounds of his protest against the re missions proposed by the right lion. gentleman. He (Mr. Gladstone) held that the House of Commons had no right to sanction the remission of any taxation until they were certain what amount of money would be required for the service of the current year. It would be wrong for the right hon. gentleman to call upon the house to agree to his financial scheme until the house had recognised afresh the principle of the income tax. Sir Robert Peel obtained a recognition of that principle before he asked the house to agree to his budget of 1842. At that period Sir R. Peel was pressed from all quarters to proceed with the discussion of the tariff before he asked the house to consider the question of the income tax • but he steadily refused to take that course. It was said that he was insincere with respect. to the tariff, and merely wanted, by artifice, to secure the imposition of an income tax ; but he repelled, as he was entitled to re pel, those suspicions with scorn. Sir R. Peel obtained from that house a second reading of his income tax before the committee proceeded to discuss a remission of taxes. That was, a sound principle, and one in favour of which he (Mr. Gladstone) was desirous of recording his vote. But he could quote other authority in favour of the protest which he was about to record against the course pro posed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; and this would not be the first time in which such a pro test was recorded in the books of the House of Com mons. They had this matter discussed at a recent period, and that period was the very last year-1851. He would state to the house briefly the circumstances of the two cases. In 1851 the income tax was renewed for a single year, and in 1851 there was a surplus of 2,000,0001. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer pro posed to the house, with the income tax about to expire after nine months, that they should deal with certain branches of the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to exchange a window tax for a house tax, and in so doing to sacrifice a sum of 600,0001. upon the service of the year. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he was correct in the statement which he had made. The window tax yielded 950,000/., and the then Chancellor of the Ex chequer proposed to substitute it for a house tax which would yield only 350,0001. He therefore. proposed to sacrifice a sum of 600,0001., and to retain a surplus of 1,400,0001. Under those circumstances, a motion was made in that house, which was supported by himself (Mr. Gladstone) (to the reasonableness of which he still adhered), the terms of which he would read to the house. On the 30th of June, 1851, the following re solution was submitted as a condemnation of the con duct of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer : "That, according to the estimated produce of the exist ing taxes submitted to this house b y the Chancellor of th Exchequer, it appears that a surplus revenue may be expected in the present year to the extent of about 2,000,0001.; that in the revenue so estimated is included a sum exceeding 5,000,000/. derived from the tax on in come, with respect to which an inquiry has been directed to be made by a committee of this house, on the result of whose labours may depend the future renewal or mo dification of that important impost; that in this provi sional state of the financial arrangements of the coun try, it appears to this house to be most consistent with a due regard to the maintenance of the public credit and the exigencies of the public service, not to make any material sacrifice of the public income which might prevent such changes as might be advisable in other branches of taxation." That motion, he believed, was moved as arr amendment to the question that the Speaker leave the chair, for the purpose of the house resolv ing itself into a committee on the house tax ; and the principle laid down was, that because the in come tax had only been renewed for a year, it would not be a justifiable proceeding to sacrifice 600,0001. of taxation, although there might, even with that remis sion, be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer a surplus of 1,400,0001. There were other items of remission proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they were altogether of a trifling cha racter. He was not sure whether a reduction on coffee was proposed—at all events, the total amount of the re missions proposed did not amount to any considerable sum ; and the surplus would have been 1,200,000/., it not 1,400,0001. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to draw a comparison between the conduct pursued by the Government of last year and that of the present Chan cellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Gladstone) had shown the house what strict and elevated notions the house pro fessed to entertain on this subject last year. He had shown them that the house was not satisfied with the late Government, because they would only retain some 1,200,0001 or 1,400,0001., with an income tax renewed for a twelvemonth. And how did they now stand ? They stood thus—the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that, for the year 1853-4, there would be a surplus of but 900,0001., and would the house, which protested against the remission of taxes when there was a surplus of 1,200,0001. or 1,400,000/., but when the question of the income ta x was unsettled, permit the right lion. gentleman to remit taxes when he had but a surplus of 900,0001., and had not obtained the consent of the house to the renewal of the income tax. Let the house compare the taxes which the right hon. gentleman proposed to impose with those which he proposed to remit. He (Mr. Glad stone) would take them on the right hon. gentleman's own estimate, without at all questioning the justice or accuracy of that estimate. The Chancellor of the Ex chequer proposed to surrender, for the year 1853-4, 1,000,0001. on the malt duty. He (Mr. Gladstone) confessed he thought that was a low estimate, but he would take it as the right hon. gentleman gave it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also proposed to sur render 400,0001. upon tea. And, in consequence of that sacrifice, lie was going to impose a new house tax, the amount of which would be 1,000,000/. annually but, as this year would only yield half that sum, viz., 500,0001., the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to remit 1,400,0001. for 500,0001., whereby he would part with 900,0001., which was the entire surplus which he expected to have in hand. And now, let the house recollect that it was the right hon. gentleman himself who had made the motion which he (Mr. Glad stone) had quoted. (Loud cheers.) It was the right hon. gentleman himself who laid down the 'principle— that, with the question of an income tax pending, the house would not be justified in reducing the surplus to even so low a figure as 1,200,0001. It was the same right hon. gentleman who now, with an income tax pending, re fused to take a vote upon it in the first instance, and in sisted upon the house proceeding with his budget, which involved a surrender of 1,400,0001. against the imposi tion of a new tax, which would yield no more than 500,0001. during the coming year. And therefore, in the protest which he (Mr. Gladstone) ventured humbly to submit to the house, he was entirely supported both by the doctrine and practice of the right hon. gentleman himself. Now, the hon. baronet who had just sat down said that a great many taunts and jeers had been thrown out against gentlemen wholhad changed their opinions with regard to free trade. He (Mr. Glad stone) must confess that, as far as the debates of that house were concerned, he had hoped that there was a great absence of such taunts and jeers. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh !" on the Ministerial side of the house.) All he could say was that, for himself, whether success ful or not, he was not the judge, lie had striven to avoid the use of them. (General applause.) He was quite sure that if they had escaped from him, or from any other person, it had been from inadvertanc e and from human infirmity. But he must say that there were cir cumstances (and especially circumstances under which the Government was going wrong) which rendered it im perative on the house to remind the leaders of the Go verment of the principles which they themselves had laid down. He read the other day an amusing report—whether correct or not he knew not—of the proceedings at a local election, in which one of the candidates complained of the other that lie had resorted to an unworthy artifice, that of referring to his antecedents. (Laugh ter.) Now he (Mr. Glads tone, begged to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not for the pur pose of resorting to an artifice, worthy or unworthy, that he referred to that right hon. gentleman s antecedents. He did so, because he wanted to point out that doctrine —a sound one, as he (Mr. Gladstone) thought—which he propounded last year, and upon which he felt so strongly, that lie felt it necessary to propose it in the shape of a motion, and take a division of the house upon it, viz., the doctrine as to the duty of that house securing its ways and means before it voted away existing taxes, was the identical doctrine which he (Mr. Gladstone) re spectfully submitted to him for his acceptance on Mon day night, but which he then—he (Mr. Gladstone) had no reason to say contemptuously, but he must say sum marily—rejected. (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It ap pears to ine, sir, that the address of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford has a tendency to facilitate that progress of the public business, which I sup pose it is the object of every party in the house to see faci litated. One would have supposed, from the observations of the right hon. gentleman, that my hon. friend the member for Hertfordshire had impeded that progress which we all desire. lam grateful for the circumstances that gave an opportunity to my hon. friend of making one of the most masterly speeches which I have ever heard. (Cheers.) And certainly no gentleman could have risen more legitimately than my lion. friend. MY hon. friend the Secretary to the treasury having moved that you should leave the chair, that we should go into committee and proceed with the business before us, one of the most distinguished members of the Opposition, representing, I suppose, the united opinion of a some what discordant agglomeration of sects—(laughter) — with that vivacious tone which distinguishes him, and that energetic command of language which is always at his disposal, seemed to me to open the cam paig,n, indicating the line which the opposing forces were going to attack—(hear) ; and I certainly did ima gine that, when a person of such influence, and the organ of his party rose, a trial would have been taken upon the issue, which I certainly, representing the Govern ment, should extremely deprecate. One hon. gentleman, although he sits on the opposite benches, made an ex cellent speech in favour of the policy of the Government ; and we certainly manifested no desire to throw any ob stacle to the due progress of public business. Some other hon. gentlemen expressed their opinions upon this subject, and then the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford rose and entered into argu ments which, if I answered in detail, would lead me to a complete vindication of the policy of the Government, and certainly entirely prevent you, sir, from leaving the chair with the view of the house resolving itself into committee. I must refrain from any replies in detail to the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman has made one charge against me. He said that my estimated surplus was a fictitious surplus. He said that it is entirely the produce of borrowed money. I do not think that this is exactly the time when I ought to go into a minute detail upon that subject. I can only say that it appears to me that the right hon. gentleman has addressed the house in com plete ignorance of the facts bearing upon this question —(loud cheers)—and that, instead of its being borrowed money, it is money that has been paid out of the revenue of the country. Mr. GLADSTONE—Hear, hear. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No other course could have been taken. I think I shall show to the satisfaction of the country that not one shilling of that money is borrowed money. (Hear, hear.) I think I shall.show that I have good reasons for the course which I recommend. I hope that I shall be able to obtain a sanction of the estimate that I have offered to the house ; and I also hope to be able to lay before the house certain facts which will lead to a great improvement in the mode in which we keep the public accounts of this country. I am persuaded when my statement comes to be laid fairly before the house, I shall establish, to the satisfaction 04 I believe, the majority of this house, that the course I am recommending is a salu tary course. (Ministerial cheers.) Well, then, sir, the right hon. gentleman appears to be offended that I did not adopt the advice which he offered to me the other night on this subject. No man had a greater respect than I have for the right hon. gentleman. There is no man probably in this house who is more ready than my self to admit his abilities, but I do not think that I am treating him disrespectively when I say that in conduct ing the business of the Government I shall follow that course which I myself think is right. (Cheers.) Sir, the right hon. gentleman has alluded to the course which I took with reference to the income and property tax when that tax was only voted for a year. Sir, I think the cases are perfectly dissimilar. When I brought for ward that motion, the income and property tax was re ferred to a committee. (Hear, hear.) It was then under the investigation of a committee. It was extremely doubt ful what would be the result of the inquiries of that com mittee, or rather, I should say, the impression was that the report of that committee would probably be fatal to the continuance of the income and property tax. There is not a single person in this house, wherever he may sit, or what ever may be his opinions, who has the slightest doubt that a sum of money equalto that produced by the income and property tax will be produced this year by a law of the same kind. (Hear, hear.) Whether the principles which I laid down, or those laid down by the resolution submitted by the my hon. friend the member for Montrose, will be adopted, may be a question, but that a sum of 5,000,0001. or more will be raised this year by the income and property tax no man has the slightest doubt. (Hear.) Well then, the right hon. gentleman says I ought to take the course which is usually taken by Chancellors of the Ex chequer on bringing forward financial statements. Now, I want to know whether there is any similarity between the circumstances under which the present Government is placed, and the ordinary position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has to bring forward the ordinary finan cial statement of the year ? Why, have we not been taunted from the very beginning by complaints that we were evading the bringing forward of our measures. (Ministerial cheers) And the most vulgar insinuations not heard, of course, in this house, were made, that we were clinging to office, and evading its responsibility. But we came forward and indicated the policy that we recommended. The policy that we recommended was, at least, at distinct policy. We said we wished to assimilate the financial system of this country to the new commercial system which is now universally acknowledged and established. I had, on the part of the Government, to bring forward the mea sures wh;ch they thought necessary for that purpose; and I am taunted and told that I ought to have followed the miserable routine of commonplace circumstances. (Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.) I run per suaded that the course I have taken is the right course. I feel persuaded that we ought not to avoid a fair and frank encounter on the policy that we recommend. We have endeavoured to place that policy without reserve before the house. There is nothing that we less shrink from than the decision ; and I hope, sir, now that you are about to leave the chair, a decision will soon be arrived at. (Loud cheers.) Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. He understood on a former occasion that the right honourable gentleman stated that her Majesty's Ministers intended to stand or fall by the financial scheme which he then proposed —that the house was to accept or reject the budget, the whole budget, and nothing but the budget ? He (Mr. Duncombe) therefore inferred that they were not now about to resolve themselves into com mittee for the purpose of amending the budget, but that it must either be swallowed or rejected as a whole. (Laughter.) Was he right in putting that construction upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement ? (Divide.) Did the right hon. gentleman intend to treat that house as a deliberative assembly, and permit them to amend his budget ? If he did, then., he (Mr. Dun combe would not persist in dividing the house. (Divide.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise to say that, as my hon. friend has stated a doubt whether he shall divide the house, if he thinks proper to divide the house, I cannot take that course with him ; but I shall be ready to go into a committee of the whole house upon the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. I will only say, therefore, that I suppose he will expect that when we go into com mittee we shall not merely discuss the single proposition which may be before the house, but that, having un folded a plan on Friday last, and having for fully five hours explained the policy of the Government, lie must expect that the whole of the plan shall be discussed when we go into committee. I certainly do not find fault with the right hon. gentleman for having brought forward a plan which he thinks for the benefit of the country. He has certainly redeemed his pledge that no time should be lost in bringing it forward, and I must say, that with portions of it I agree, however much I object to the greater part of it. Mr. B. OSBORNE hoped the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would give an answer to the question of his honourable friend the member for Finsbury—(divide)- - as on the answer to that question might depend a con siderable number of votes on that (the Opposition) side of the house. He had no wish to vote with his honour able friend the member for Finsbury if he was mistaken in the construction which he had put upon the Chancel lor of the Exchequer's statement upon former occasions; but it was an insult to that house, and to the country [the honourable and gallant gentleman being here in terrupted by loud cries for a division, exclaimed, amid repeated bursts of laughter—" I observe that the lion. member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) is interrupting me at an hour of the evening (half-past six o'clock) when lie has no excuse for such conduct," and resumedj—but it was an insult to that house, and to the country, to be told that the budget must be accepted as proposed by the Government. He called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a distinct answer to the question of his honourable Friend the member for Finsbury, and in the event of his refusal, he advised Mr. Duncombe to divide the house. He hoped that if the house went to to a division, honourable members would testify by their votes their opinion of the conduct of the Government on this important occasion. (Hear, and much confusion.) Mr. HUDSON rose, amidst a scene of considerable disorder, and said—Having been personally alluded to by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne), I get up to answer his imputation. Ido not understand his imputation, nor do I understand what he means when he chooses to make use of such language. The imputations which he throws upon me it is his custom to throw upon others as well ; but. I tell him there is no body who more defies his imputations than I do— (laughter)—and there is no man who is more ready to meet him here or elsewhere than I am. (Confusion, and cries of " Order." I am sure I do not intend to be out of order ; but I cannot understand what the ion. member means. I have now done with the hon. member. Mr. B. OSBORNE—Oh ! I accept your apology (Laughter.) Mr. HUDSON—I am not unwilling to return any friendship the hon. member may think fit to express, but I trust the hon. member will not again indulge . 1 any such remarks as he has made to - night. I now .wish to address myself to the main question—(a laugh); namely, whether this motion should be withdrawn is not. I think that the hon. member, having made , bound to divide upon it, and, for my part, I am quite ready to go to a division on the question. Mr. HUME was of opinion that the question to which the hon. members for Finsbury and Middlesex were so answered already. He to obtain a reply had He apprehended that it was been perfectly on. upon 3cl e a c ch Y and every one' of both sides of the house, that the votes proposed by the Go_ r e nment whether duties respect to the house tax, the malvtetax, or , the tea duties hon. members were to have an opportunity in committee of submitting any amendments they pleased. (Hear, hear.) He trusted t hat, under these circumstances, his hon. friends would perceive that the very best course that the house c ould pursue was to go, with as little de lay as possible, int o a committee of ways and means. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I beg the house to believe that I have no desire to answer, otherwise than in the most satisfactory manner in my power, any questions that any hon. member may think fit to put to me. (Cheers.) I thought there v most distinct understanding on all sides o as to the course to be pursued on this subject ; an if I had had any doubt as to the existence of such an understanding, it would have been dispelled by the remarks which have fallen this evening from the noble lord the member for London, who appeared to be quite as well aware of the true state of the case as any one could be at this side of the house. With respect to the statement I had the honour to make this day week, I am sensible that it may have been too long, but it was not longer that I felt it consistent with my duty to wards the house and the country to make it ; but, when Le house r A a Z 4 ' . -' \ CII I 1 „rill: per it was concluded, I had thought that it was pe ectl , ii, k e , well understood on all sides of the house that we we ••• - , , ''''n,,,. losto go into committee this evening, and that an op 1_ . •4' nity was then to be afforded to all members, who mV ' l .-ce-. 014 4,-4 choose to accept it, of stating in what respects the ...-...., own views might differ from those which I propounded on the part of the Government. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for London has expressed so well the feelings of the Government—and, indeed, I think I may add of the house—upon this subject, that I do not think it necessary to dwell upon it at any length. (Hear, hear, hear.) It did not occur to me that there was any necessity to answer the questions of the hon. members for Finsbury and Middlesex—questions which seemed to me of a loose and inconclusive character, and having no especial reference to the rather vague and desultory statements with which they were prefaced. I certainly did not say that the Government were resolved to stand or fall by every vote in committee of ways and means, for I should have considered such a de claration most arrogant and presumptuous—(hear)--- but what I did mean to convey was this, that the whole scheme of the budget being founded upon certain prin ciples, we should consider as fatal to the whole any vote that was actually subversive of those principles. I said that the whole project being based upon certain great principles, we must, as a matter of course, fall by any vote the effect of which would be to cause a departure from those principles. In the case, for instance, of the income and d property taxes, the whole policy recom mended by the Government being founded upon the principle that a distinction should be recognised between precarious and realised incomes, any renunciation on the part of the house of that principle would, no doubt, be fatal to the whole. scheme. But if this principle be pre served inviolate, other regulations respecting the income tax will be simply regarded as matters of detail, and as such will not involve the fate of the Government. (Hear.) So, again, with regard to the first vote—the extension'of the house tax—is a principle of such im portance that the Government are of opinion that it ought to be insisted upon. The details of the tax doubtlessly are also matters of importance, but it would be arrogant and presumptuous in me to declare that the Government are prepared to stand or fall by them. (Hear, hear.) I trust that this explanation will be re garded as satisfactory. (Cheers.) Mr. DUNCOISIBB said that after the explanation o the right hon. gentleman he did not think it necessary 'A) press the motion to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn. WAYS AND MEANS. il 4 r, • ofj The house then wont into Committee of Ways and Means —MraW. PATTEN in the chair. The inhalaited house duty was the first question taken. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the following resolutions : " That, from and after the sth day of April, 1853, the duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 36, upon inhabited dwelling-houses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and de termine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such dwelling-houses the following duties, that is to say : " For every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of ten pounds or upwards by the year ; • Where any such dwelling-house shall be occupied by any person in trade who shall expose to sale and sell any goods, wares, or merchandise in any shop or warehouse, being part of the same dwelling-house, and in the front and on the ground or basement story thereof ; " And also where any such dwelling-house shall be occu pied by any person who shall be duly licensed by the laws in force to sell therein by retail beer, ale, wine, or other liquors, although the room or rooms thereof in which any such liquors shall be exposed to sale, sold, drunk, or con sinned, shall not be such shop or warehouse as aforesaid ; " And also where any such dwelling-house shall be a farm house occupied by a tenant or farm servant, bond fide used for the purposes of husbandry only ; " There shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such annual value of any such dwelling-house the sum of one shilling. " And where any such dwelling-house shall not be occu pied and used for any such purpose and in manner aforesaid, there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such annual value thereof the sum of one shilling and sixpence." The CHAIRMAN having read the resolutions as far as the words " following duties," Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved as an amendment, "That in lieu of the increase of the tax on houses, proposed in the said resolution, real property shall be made to pay the same probate and legacy duties as are now payable on per sonal property." He confessed he viewed with great alarm and disfavour this proposition on the part of the Govern ment to extend the house tax, for he believed that it in volved a breach of faith with the public, who had been given to understand last year that the house tax was im posed simply for the purpose of supplying the deficiency created by the abolition of the window tax, and that it would not be extended beyond the amount of that defi ciency. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an indirect violation of that understanding, in consi deration of which alone, the house had been induced to acquiesce in the tax. Under the now system, three or four times as many persons as were now liable to the tax would have to pay it for the future. Almost every labouring man who occupied one room in a house would, directly or indirectly, come within its grasp. It would press most grievously on the industrial classes in the metropolis and great towns, while the same classes in the country would be comparatively, if not alto gether exempt. 20,000 of his (Mr. Williams) consti tuency, who were now free from it, would henceforward be liable, while not one labouring man on the estate of the hon. baronet (the member for Hertfordshire) would have to pay the tax. Farm-house valuations differed very widely, as everybody knew, from the valuations of city houses, and country gentlemen were known to exercise an irresistible influence on the county assessors. The tax would disfranchise 2,000 electors in the parish of Lambeth alone ' and it was his conviction that its main object was to effect that and similar disfrauchisements. • He did not object to the reductions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make, though he was not sure that the consumer would be greatly benefited by the reduction of the duties on tea or malt ; but he was decidedly hostile to the house tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would act wisely by abandoning the tax, and extending to real property the probate and legacy duties, now payable on personal property only. The probate and legacy duty wa s a tax which affected one class most oppressively, while another class, composed of opulent persons, escaped it en tirely. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perceive the propriety of acceding to this sugges tion, and if he did so, he (Mr. Williams) would find no great difficulty in saying " aye" to the rest of his budget. He could have wished, however, that the right hon. gentle man had also acknowledged the necessity of abolishing the most objectionable of all taxes—that on soap. Mr. HUME did not see what practical good would re sult from the amendment, and advised his hon. friend to withdraw it for the present. It had no legitimate relation to the house tax, and was, therefore, for the present, in opportune. The real question for the committee just now to consider was, whether the project of the Government was to be accepted as a whole, or whether it was to be de feated in /intim, and the Government told to go about their business. (A. laugh.) If the Government were suf fered to retain office, they would have to bring in a bill on the subject of the inhabited house duties, and that bill would have to pass through all the customary stages, and then the hon. member would have abundant opportunity to state objections and suggest expedients. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said it was his opinion that the proposition which he had moved could only be made in a committee of ways and means ; it could not be brought for ward as an amendment on any bill of the Government. Ho did not object to the remissions proposed by the Govern ment, but to the means by which they meant to provide for the supplies of the year ; and he pointed to the means which he would prefer to substitute. On the whole, he thought ho was right in the course he had taken. Sir R. H. INGLIS agreed with the hon. member for Montrose as to the propriety of discussing the proposed amendment on that occasion. But he took occasion, at the same time, to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the exemptions which the income and property tax, as well as the house tax involved. He could v ery well understand a system of taxation which excluded all exemp tions whatever, and touched the labourer at twelve shillings a week equally as the man of an independent income. That was intelligible. But, if exemptions were introduced at all, he contended—whatever might be the point at which they fixed the limit, whether it were 1001. or 150/.—that limit ought to be observed in all incomes, whether in the case of the income below the limit, which was therefore exempted altogether, or in the case of an income above the limit, which ought to be taxed only on the amount of the excess. It was not inconsistent to exempt the man with 1501 uroPil9, but it was cruelty to tax a man with an income of t 1511. upon the whole amount. There was another subject upon which he approved what had fallen from thewhrienteh°9ci gentleman the Chancellor of the Exehequer, with incomes sai he meant to consider the case vi o o f w clergy men otleir relief, on the not exceeding 1001. with appliedn to Dissenting ministers. same p rinci p le as was he hoped no ono would re- That was a poposition housewi and the Government to consi gret. He begged the . consi der the difficulty which these gentlemen aeco h r ad din t , ? contend with in maintaining their appearance ed s e to their y Power of letting rank, and also that houses were provid for them, which they were obliged to occupy without an them to others. He submitted these two propositions in to ifnurthhie consideratio n income tax, ho the Chancellor of the a lima ?cheliquier first, whether, striking would not observe it in all cases, and tax only the excess ; and, secondly, whether he ought to levy a h ouse tax on those who wore compelled to occupy certain houses which they had no power to sub-let. Mr. BRIGHT thought the hon. gentleman would see it w as not advisable to risk the rejecti on of his proposition in the existing state of the house, especially a distinct proposition on the part theofas there was Government be fore them. It were better the committee should be a llowed to vote aye or no upon the main proposition. For himself, he did not see the nece ss it y for any new tax being imposed, but when that necessity should arise, then a tax upon pro perty by succession genera ll y was the one to which the house ought to agree, and until th a t tax, w h en required, was agreed to, he should not give his vote for any new tax whatever. H e h ope d the hon. gentleman would give way. Mr. HUDSON by no means agreed with the advice of the hon. member for Manchester, that the amendment should be withdrawn, since the hon. member for Lambeth signified his approval of the Budget in all except this par ticular item. Ho said his constituents, in so far as they were connected with the shipping interest, found that the Government in removing all their grievances had given them reasons to be thankful. He admitted, although a petition from his constituents against the house tax had been presented by him, that if they were to have cheap tea and cheap beer, the loss occasioned thereby must be borne in some other way, but then he perceived that, while the taxes remitted amounted to 3,000,0001., the new im post proposed was only to the extent of 100,0001. The re mission • o f the tea duty w ould be a direct b enefit to the consumer, and an indirect advantage, by its influence on commerce, and our trade with China and our relations with that country. Tho reduction of the malt tax would have upon the agri cu lt ura l interest the most benefi cial effect an d th e enjoyment of the poor. From his own exten sive acquaintance, he might say that the country gene rally, we re perfectly satisfied with the Budget. He certainly. knew it had produced no alarm among the commercial classes, and he believed that, if adopted, it would promote the development of commerce, at the same time it increased the returns to revenue. He (Mr. Hudson) was glad the hon. baronet the member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had withdrawn his proposi tions. What the country wanted was this—now that the struggle of free trade was over, that there should be a final 'd 1 i P x IP d I ,11 pI 11