The Sun. — London, England, 1863-04-17 00:00:00

portion was for the last year; and this, together with eeer rain minor augmentations due to the gradual growth of the licence duties and o th er d ut i es o f E x ci s e, places the esti ina-e for Excise at £17,600,000. The stamps I take at .0,000,000, taxes at £3,160.000,the income- tax at L 10,500,000, the Post-office at £3,800,000, the Crown lands at £300,000, the miscellaneous at £2,500,000, and the China indemnity at £450,000. There again it will be asked why so much larger credit is taken for this item than in previous years. The answer to this is two-fold. First of all in the year which has jug , elapsed we made a large payment to tho merchants of nearly £200,000—£192,000, I believe—on account of their claims, and there is no corresponding item of deduction from the receipts of the present year which will come net to the public service. Again, though I have only taken credit in the account of last year up to the 30th of September, I believe in the preeent year we shall be able tc take credit up to the 3/et of December,—in fact, £4i0,000 from this source is an estimate which I feel per fectly justified in making. All these items together bring up the estimated revenue for the year 1863-4 to £71,490,000. The estimated expenditure for the year is £67,749,000; consequently there is an excess of income over expenditure of £3,741,000. (Cheers) The committee will, perhaps, think that when the Government. has no im pediment in its way to prevent it from proceeding to the agreeable duty of the remission of taxation, it is idle for them to trouble themselves with the consideration of any questions tending to the augmentation of revenue. At the same time in the complicatee and extensive financiel system of this country anomalies great or small are always being brought to light, sometimes from the representations of in t, rented persons, sometimes because they are found to have been anomalies when originally embodied in the law, and sometimes because, thouuh not originally such, they have become anomalous, and even m ischievous, in consequence of the alteration of circumstances. It is the duty of the Go vernment steadily and continuously, in a great degree with out reference to popular pressure, though always paying a due regard to popular opiaon to remove th ose anomalies upon fitting occasions by judicious proposals to Parliament. (Hear.) The first proposal of the present year which has a bearing upon financial matters, though mainly relating to trade, is that which has to do with the tobacco duties, and which has already become law. We have already taken credit for that alteration of the law in the Estimate of the Customs revenue which I have laid before the com mittee- The next claimant to our attention is familiar to the committee—l mean the duty on chicory. (A laugh.) The state of the case is very simple. There appears to be a very general agreement among persons of au: hority b )th in the revenue departments and in he commercial world that, as chicory and coffee are used strictly for the same purposes in a combination together which is indis tinguishable to the ordinary consumer, they ought to pay the same tax. (Hear, hear.) Then comes the divergence, because one portion of the world says " raise the duties on chicory," and the other says " lower the duties on coffee." (A laugh) if that be the alternative, my own inclination is very decidedly f o raise the duty on chicory,not only because it tends to greater gain, but for these two very plain reasons. At the present moment coffee is lightly taxed in proportion to its value, when we compare it with tea or any other article with which it can be compared (hear, hear), and consequently if we lower the duty we hazard a very considerable rever ue— some £loo,ooo—without having any hopes of so acting upon prices or improving the circumstances of consumption as to give any sensible relief to the people, or of producing any corresponding or even fractional improvement to the revenue• I propose, therefore, to equalise the duties on coffee and chi cory. I propose that the duty on foreign chicory, with a cer tain amount for waste, shall be 265. 6d , as compared with 275. on coffee, and in regard to chicory grown at home that the tax with a small allowance, shall be 245. 4d. I may take this opportunity of stating that, while with regard tc) the other r eso l ut i ons which I amabout to introduce to the committee, we shall propose to take them on this day week, with regard to the resolution on the chicory duties I shall ask the house to take it at once, without prejudice to the ul timate judgment of the house on so grave a question, in order to prevent the release of the article at the present duty to-morrow morning. There are several other ques tions of no great magnitude which I shall endeavour to pass over, if I can, in a single sentence. It is an evident anomaly in the law, as it is now worded, that strong liquors sold at clubs are sold without any licence. (Loud laughter.) These clubs are for such purposes in direct competition with coffeehouses and hotels, which pay license duties. We propose that they shall pay the same rates of license duties as the occupiers of hotels and coffeehouses—(oh, oh, and hear, hear)—but, of course, effectual provision will be made to prevent any annoying accompaniment—any interference at the discretion of a magistrate which may be unnecessary —any liability to the visitations of the police. It is merely a question of the equality of taxation, and my whole object is to establish that equality. The next proposal is one of a similar character. At present this case is not unfrequent. A. person applies to a justice of the peace for a license to sell strong liquors. He obtains a licence to sell spirits, and he then takes out a licence to sell beer, for which he only pays £1 He afterwards drops the licence to sell spirits, and con • tinues the licence to sell beer; but every other person want ing to sell beer, and not arriving at it through the medium of a spirit licence pays £3 6s. I, therefore, propose that a man who arrives at a beer licence through the medium of a spirit licence shall pay the same duty as he who takes it out at once, without any such process. (A laugh.) I am sorry to detain the committee with these details; but all persons interested in the financial proposals of the year expect as a matter of course that at this season of the year a full state ment shall be made of those proposals, and it would not be fair to those parties if I were not to deal with all that affects them in detail. (Hear.) A year or two ago we re moved a great anomaly, by which no person except a publi can was permitted to sell less than a dozen bottles of wine ; and there is a similar anomaly still existing, which forbids every one except a publican from selling less than two dozen of beer. I propose to remove that anomaly, and to give an additional licence for selling a less quantity of beer—of course taking care that there shall be no possibility of sell ing on the premises. There is another question, of competi tion, which also demands our consideration. The proprietors of omnibuses have been before the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, seeking for a reduction of duty. Their case really divides itself into two parts. One of their complaints is the amount they have now to pay, and they have another com plaint of the undue competition they have to sustain. With respect to the amount of duty they have to pay, it is only a quarter of what they had to pay 25 or 30 years ago ; and about eight years ago this house took the matter into its own hands, and did grant considerable relief to stage coach proprietors. I confess it appears to me that the only case they have to make at present is that of undue competition, owing to the mode in which other persons are dealt with. The proprietors of stage coaches in the country complain that carriers who profess to travel under four miles an hour and carry passengers pay no duty whatever. It is impos sible to know whether they travel at four miles an hour or not ; but their carriages are not of a character to pay at the same rate as stage coaches; and what I propose is that they should pay half the duty now paid by stage coaches. The other part of the complaint of the omnibus owners is with respect to the competition of the railw a y s an d o f the un equal manner in which railways are taxed. The house is aware that railways are supposed to pay 5 per cent on their passenger receipts. But in 1842 a sort of compact was made between the Government and the railway c mpanies, and it was ratified by the legislation of this house, under which the railway companies undertook the obligation to run a certain number of trains at fares not exceeding one penny per mile, upon the condition of the exemption of those trains from taxation. It may be said that it was a covenant then made between them and the Government, and that if the exemption be discontinued they are re leased from the obligation of running the trains. It is a question not within my department, and upon which I am not prepared to give an opinion. But since that time an anomalous state of things has grown up. Exemptions are usually bad, and, although a good deal may be said for this particular exemption, a system has prevailed by which ex cursion traffic is entirely exempted from duty , while the re gular traffic is liable to pay a duty of 5 per cent. on the re ceipts. The Government submit most confidently to the house that that is an anomalous and injurious state of things. In the first place, it is wrong to draw a distinction between one kind of traffic and another, and to give a pre mium to railway Companies to cultivate one kind of traffic in preference to another, In the second place, it is not only wrong, but absurd, to give that particular premium in the case of what we term excursion traffic, which, no doubt, is very useful and valuable i n it s way, but, at the same time, e, seems to be attended with considerable' inconvenience and considerable danger. (Cheers.) Far be it from we to say that Parliament should presume t o di scourage or repress excursion traffic, but we ought not to stimulate and force it by direct pecuniary encouragement at the expense o f th e general traffic of the country. (Hear.) The effect of this singularly anomalous arrangement is, that while railways are supposed to pay 5 per cent. on their receipts, they only pay between 3 and 4 per cent., and in the case of some rail ways, which deal only in a particular kind of traffic, only 2 per cent. ; and so far they give a fair subject for complaint to competing interests. 'What we propose is this, to destroy the exemption altogether and to commute the payment of 5 per cent. with exemptions into a payment of 3i per cent. without exemptions. The result will be nearly the same. It will be slightly in favour of the Treasury ; but we shall establish a ssund principle instead of an unsound principle, and an equal state of things between rival interests. (Hear, hear.) We propose to assimilate the law in Ireland as to cha ritable legacies to the law of England. Charitable legacies in Ireland at the present moment are insignificant, and do not pay legacy duties. We shall repeal that exemption. This connects itself with a more important subject, to which I wish to invite attention. It is to the removal of an exemp tion in the Income-tax Acts, granted to charities and cor porations, with resp ect to such p art of their income as they shall prove to have been expended in charity. The grounds upon which this proposal rests are as follows, and I ear nestly hope and confidently e xpect it will receive the sanc tion of the house& In 18e3it was proposed to lay the suc cession duty on corporations. _ o legislation, could be carried in that year f i r the purpose, although think the principle was approval by the house. 1 think it was felt that there was no reason in the world why corporate property should receive a premium at the expense of i n dividuals; because it Must be Lorne in mind that all these exemptions mean non-payment by one man at the cost of another. (Hear, hear.) The consideration of the question of succession dirty terecorporaticins brountEtTo le mind of the Government this further nritarkable fact, that in this country we have i levied during the financial year which has just cl - ed about 15 millions of hard money in direct taxation, bur that every shilling of that money ie taken out of the poc z, is of indi viduals, and that whatever is held strictly in u ortmain, in the hands of corporate bodies, or professes t) i remote cha rity, does not contribute one shilling, as I se el contend, to those £15,000,000. (Hear, hear.) I venture to say that this is an unjust state of things. It is not fair that the tax payers of this country, the fathers of families, men labouring to support their wives and children, should pay taxes aug mented in order to encourage. gentlemen on their death-beds, when they can no longer enjoy the money themselves, to deviseenni a ry p reingeniouspreference emethodsoctos tof disposing the of g e n their era wealth, e c a o l m th m , which y shall cause their names to be written up in enor mous cap i ta l letters, and create governors of trusts who s h a ll meet toge ther at sumptuous dinners from yea r t o year i n order to g l or ify the pious and immortal memory o f the man who has devised this ingenious meth o d o f di spos i ng of his proper y. (Loud cheers.) i I am not g o i ng t o say one word in disparage ment of these institutions, exc e pt up t o t h e po i nt t h at t h ey ought not to enjoy th a t very l arge amount of positive pe . which is a eard e d t o t h em b y the present state of the law. (hear, hear.) I refer now to what is the principal part of I the whole matter, that when the exemption was first grantee 4 the state of the case was very different. At that time the , State undertook no direct expenditure for education—one of the main objects of endowed charities. The State under took no direct expenditure for the poor—another main pur pose of these endowed charities. Far less did the State undertake any expenditure on account of charities them selves. How stands the case now ? The votes which are submitted to this house for the present year for those pur poses include—for education, £1,111,000; for the Poor-Law i oard, £227,000; for Universities, £35,000; and for these charities themselves a little item of £IB,OOO a-year. So that the public are now called upon, not only to have the pro perty of these charities maintained and improved at the cost of these gene: al taxes, without contributing a farthing, but are called upon to provide the expenses of a board, secre taries, clerks, and a considerable establishment, in order to manage charities of this description. There are other points upon which I do not intend to dwell. One is, that it being hardly possible to construe the law, it is obliged to be administered roughly and hand-over-head, as it canbest be done. The opinions of law officers come to throw great doubt upon any exemption. If a person leave property for the benefit of the poor (.1 his parish, one would suppose that that is charity. But, no ; that is net charity, because it goes in aid of the poor-rare. An infinity of questions of the most perplexed kind arise, and the difficulty in the execution of the law is beyond anything that can be conceived. I have spoken of the £IB,OOO a year ior the maintenance of the Charity Commission, It is a very u: eful and beneficial ex penditure. But, over and above that, the revenue depart ment is at a great expense for the purpose of endeavouring to administer this law. The complexity and minuteness of the claims are indescribable. A single institution has pro perty in 40 or 50, and sometimes in 100 different parishes, and on each of those properties are charged piffle beqaesits and little payments, into the investigation of which it is impossible to enter with the view of ascertaining whether they are for the purposes of charity or not. Therefore, upon the sound general ground that all property ought to contri bute to those taxes, which, if they are justly paid, are not a penalty on property, but are the means of ke-ping property available for the enjoyment of the owner, upon the ground of the altered practice of the State, and upon the ground of the difficulty and confusion of administering the law as it at present stands, we propose that that exemption shall cease to exist. At the same time there are certain provisions which it is necessary to keep alive. Part of the exemption refers to buildings belonging to hospitals, colleges, and cha rities of various descriptions. We do net propose to take away t hat part of the exemption, and simply on the practical ground that having in view the simplification of the law we should not assist our object, as it would be extremely diffi cult to arrive at a principle upon which the buildings and their sites could be valued. We propose also to continue the exemption for the repairs of places of Divine worship. With regard to what are termed voluntary subscriptions, they stand on a totally different footing. No person will be assessed in respect of them. The property of endowed charities will be taxed by being taxed at its source, but all incomes from voluntary subscriptions comes from persons who have paid the tax already, and it will remain as now unaffected by .this change in the law. Another reserva tion justice requires us to make, and it is thus. Where there is an individual whose income is under £IOO, and who receives a portion of that income from charity, he shall in no case be liable to any abatement. If we were to refuse to return him the tax, which otherwise we should be obliged to do, we should place him in a worse position in derogation of rights acquired anterior to the passing of the enactment which we now propose, and therefore a provision is made to secure him the same amount of income. (Hear.) This is a matter of detail, but I am anxious to state completely what the change will be. (Hear.) I might detain the committee longer in dealing with this subject, inasmuch as it is one on which there is a good deal of perplexity involved. I, how ever, now omit many points connected with it, to which I may take an opportunity of adverting on some future occa sion. We do not, I may add, precisely knew +h. ~ , nro. ' financial importance of this question ; but this we do know, that we retain taxes on £2,500,000 of property. We like wise know that a very large amount of property in the coun try is discharged from assessment altogether, and that has been dune as a mode of meeting the hopeless difficulties of the case. But it is very probable—indeed, it is almost cer tain—that much of this property has passed from charities into the hands of private individuals, who now pay no tax upon it. In fact, we have completely lost sight of a consider able portion of it. But the tax, as estimated, is over £IOO,OOO a year, and the removal of the exemption would bring it down to £75,000, which is all that will come into the cof fers of the State in the present year. The minor changes I mentioned bring in about £58,000 a year; these, together with others which were suggested for the amendment of our fiscal system, amount to £133,000 a year, which added to a surplus of £3,741,300, makes it £3,874,000 (Hear, hear.) Then comes the question of the manner in which we are to dispose of that surplus. (Cheers.) The first subject which I have to mention is one to which I can not allude without a pang to my self-love. I refer to the penny charge on goods brought inward, which is sometimes called a petty and sometimes asmall charge, and which was proposed in 1860, It was originally proposed in the belief on the part of the Government that it would be levied without entailing any delay in the course of trade, or opposing to the progress of trade any practical obstacle or hindrance. That expectation has, I am bound to say, broken down. The proposal was maintained for the purpose of getting the money which was required at the moment. But, although I think the state of the trade of the country amply shows that the imposition of the charge amounts to no capital grievance, yet a good deal of inconvenience does attend the levying of the tax. It is liable to all the objections which attach to chats de balances, or, as we call them, nominal duties, and we have now, I am happy to say, arrived at a condition of the revenue which enables us to dispense with this particular duty. I therefore propose that after the Ist of next July, this penny charge inwards should cease and determine. Alongside this there runs another charge, one of Is. 6d. en bills of lading outwards. The operation of the two is, however, very different. There is no delay or i obstruction connected with the levy of the Is. 6d. duty. It was imposed mainly with the view to statistical ob jects. A committee of this house, presided over by my hon. friend the member for Honiton, having examined into the matter, reported that in their opinion there were no important statistical advantages to be derived from its im position, and the necessary statistical inf orma ti on cou ld b e obtained without it. Now, having assented to the reference of the question to that committee, the revenue derived from the duty not being very important, and certain merchants in this country, who are themselves most interested in securing good statistics, and whose authority is entitled to considerable weight, having stated it to be their opinion that the tax was unnecessary for that purpose, we thought it better to deal with it in the same manner as the penny ' inward. duty. We therefore propos e th a t thi s l s . 6d. d u ty sh,lldisappear from the same date. The total revenue re ceived from these charges amounts to £191,000, and as that revenue will cease on th e Ist of July we shall have the charge for nine months, or £142,000, to deduct from the surplus which I have stated. There have been times, in ancient nations, at all events, when it was considered not only warrantable but highly laudable for parents to bring their own children to the scaff o ld or the axe. I now find ' myself in that predicament. (A laugh.) I offer up these children of mine with the greatest cheerfulness and good humour, as far as I am concerned, on the altar of the cone. enerce of my country. (Laughter.). The nex t su b ject which I have to submit to the name of the committee i s one to which I feel very anxious to draw its favourable atten tion. It is of greater magnitude than the matters which I have jest same time e of f f such e disposeustutdemasenttoioned; bu o t f it a is surplus at our command. It relates to what may be called the minor incomes now liable to the income tax, and I verynot at l a t r h g e e must remind the committee of the course with respect to it which has been taken by the legislature. When Mr. Pitt first introduced the income tax, £6O was the limit of the incomes to which the tax began to attach. But it began to attach in a form so very mitigated as to be of very little financial value, and I should be sorry to be the man to return to such a provision in the construction or rather reconstruction of the tax. Mr. Pitt fixed the limit upwards at £2OO, and it was only on incomes at and above that amount that the full force of the tax fell. A very complicated series of arithmetical tables of deductions was submitted by him to Parliament which provided that the deductions should grow larger and larger as the incomes became less and less down to the point fixed. I have cited the authority of Mr. Pitt simply to show that in his view, and in the view of the Parliament of that day, £2OO censtitated the limit at which the full opera tion of the tax ought to begin to attach. It is undoubtedly true that since the time of Mr. Pitt the wealth of the country has enormously increased, and with that enormous increase in wealth the relative value of a given pecuniary income has become diminished by many pounds sterling. An income of £2OO a-year at the present day gives less consequence to a man, and less social standing than it did in the time of Mr. Pitt; and an important part of the proposal I am about to make is, that we should fix £2OO a year as the limit below - which some deduction or i4v( , ur in autos tot rn should attach to incom es liable to the income tat. (Hear, hear.) At a`l- . _ • • later period, under the pressure of war, the limit was car ried down to £l5O. When Si. R. Pee! revived the tax in 1842, he revived it at that amount, but he did so entertain.. ing the hope of its early extinction. (Hear, hear.) When in 1853 the tax was renewed for seven years, and again with a hope of its extinction which proved to be fallacious— (hear)--the limit of the tax was taken downwards, and fixed at £IOO instead of £l5O. The ground upon which that was done, and I think justly done by Parliament was this— It was shown that no class of the community had benefited more by the genera! extension of trade and the increase of profits resulting from the imposition of the income tax, and the diminution of protective and other indirect duties, than that class whose incomes ranged between £IOO and £l5O a year. It was, I may ray, due in justice to those who had incomes somewhat above £l5O per annum that those whose incomes were immediately under that sum should not be allowed to escape untaxed. I think we are about right in saying that the application of the duty might commence with incomes of £IOO. I do at the same time most confi dently state, having now held my present office for a considerable term of years, and I know I shall be sup ported in the view which I take by all the authorities con cerned in the working of the tax when I say it—that the real sore place in the working of the tax is to be found in the weight with which it presses on incomes ranging be tween £IOO and £2OO per annum. I am myself, I may say. the confidential recipient of the sorrows and grievances of the taxpayers of the country. There is scarcely a morning which does not bring me complaints of the pressure of the income tax, and I believe I am stating the case moderately when I inform the committee that 19 out of 20 of those com plaints come from persons having incomes between £IOO and £2OO a year. One thing which makes the tax especially gall ing to that class is this, that there is no portion of the in comes of the country—and this is my fixed opinion—on which the tax is more ;accurately and fully levied than it is upon the lower class of incomes. The concerns of those who possess only these smaller incomes are more transpa rent than those of their richer fellow-countrymen; every neighbour can see through them ; they live in glass houses, and deception, if they were disposed to deceive, is for them almost entirely impossible. They pay the tax fully and rigidly, while they say a good many above them do not in that respect follow their example. (Hear.) '[hen comes another difficulty in the case. There is a very large portion of the labouring classes—and until the distress in Lanca shire there was a much larger portion—in whose case the aggregate income of a single family amounts to more than £IOO per annum, but in whose case we could not touch the family with the tax because the income of the father at the head of it did not amount to £IOO. It was felt quite impos sible to institute an inquisitorial investigation into the little earnings of the rest of the family. That, too, is a reason for dealing gently with incomes between £IOO and £l5O per annum. What we find to be the two pinching points in the operation of the tax are where it falls upon incomes of £IOO a year and a little o eer, and £l5O a year and a little over that amount also. The proposal of the Government is this, — and it will in my opinion go far to meet what we think to be, I do say the strict and rigid justice of the case, because mathematical justice is hardly applicable to this subject, and in principle there is no injustice in calling upon any man who is able to pay income• tax to dc so, but that kind of equitable justice which it is the desire of Parlia ment to administer with a due regard to public prudence and policy, and that degree of pressure which is practically brought to bear on flesh on blood in matters of taxation. We say,retain incomes of 1100 a year as the point at which a man will become taxable; fix upon incomes of £2OO as the point at which he may be brought under the full sweeep of the tax; remove the distinction at £l5O altogether, abolish the double rate, have only one rate, but allow every taxable person whose income ranges between £IOO and £2OO a year to make a deduction of £6O from his taxable income. The effect of that will be to get rid almost entirely of those sore points in the operation of the tax to which I have alluded. In order to illustrate the change which is proposed, I will state what would be the effect of it on various incomes, taking the tax at its present rates of 9d. and 6d. ~ On an income of £IOO the tax is now £2 10s, under the new sys tem it would £1 10s. On an income of £125 it would be £2 Bs. 9d, instead of £3 2s. 6d, as at present ; on an income of £l5O, £3 7s. 6d, instead £5 12s. 6d; and on an income of £175, £4 6s. 3d, instead of £6 lls. 3d. (Hear, hear.) Those who entertain very strong objections to the income-tax may, perhaps, think it would be better to retain all its inequali ties. I have, however, always felt, and I continue to feel, the force of these objections ; but at the same time I think it is our duty to remove, wherever it is practicable, those inequalities which produce great public discontent. I speak the opinion of all who are practically conversant with the working of this branch of the revenue when I say that the adoption of this proposal will be a great, I may almost say an immeasurable boon to those classes whom it concerns. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, we have got the pickaxe into the fabric of the surplus, and having disloged one or two bricks, we shall find it very easy to bring the whole of it to the ground. The subject which I have now to bring under the consideration of the committee is that which I had better call the tea or sugar rather than the tea and sugar duties. It is very clear, in the first place, that the ques tion of what we loosely but intelligently call the war duties on tea and sugar occunies a front place among those questions which have at the present time to be dealt with by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) In the second place, it is, I believe, the view of Parliament, as it is also of Govern ment, that in a case where we are happily able to offer a reduction of taxation, regard should be had both to the de scriptions of direct and indirect taxation. Now, it is quite impossible for us to make an effectual change with respect to the tea and sugar duties. The cost would be too great of reducing the tea duty to Is., and the sugar duties to the point at which they stood before the Russian war. It ap pears to us perfectly clear that, whatever we do, we ought not to divide the remission into two or more parts, but rather to choose one of two subjects. (Hear, hear.) It will be much better, as it seems to us, to make such an altera tion as will give a sensible stimulus to trade, consumption, and revenue, than to dole out and divide into minute pro po'tions the relief which it is in our power to bestow. (Hear.) Therefore it comes to be a question between tea and sugar, and it is, I suppose, the first time in the history of mankind that these two articles have been placed in hos tile competition with each other. (A. laugh.) Nature seems to have ordained an intimate alliance between them, which has been satisfactory to the experience of us all, and I am very sorry it falls to my lot to propose a severance even in appearance. It is obvious, however, that if you confer a boon on the one it immediately overflows on the other, because the old combination in their use makes it per fectly certain that if you reduce the duty on sugar you will produce an increased consumption of tea, and if you reduce the duty on tea you will have a larger demand for sugar. (Hear.) There is no difficulty in either case in regard to the stocks, because we have an abundance of both. Sugar is for the moment the cheaper of the two, but its cheapness depends on the continuance of a great calamity to mankind— the war in America. 1 he arguments in favour of a reduction of the duty on sugar appear to me to be these—first, that the duty nine years ago was actually lower than it is now, while the tea duty never has been in point of fact lower then at present ; and second, that the trade in sugar is larger and more important than that in tea. The arguments for tea will readily suggest themselves to the minds of hon. members. There are some secondary considerations, but these cannot decide the case. Our pecuniary relations with China, our military establishments there, oar interest in developing the commerce of that country, are, no doubt, im portant national considerations, but can hardly be allowed to turn the scale in a question like this. There is, however, a negative argument for tea which is of some importance, and which is derived from the state of certain proceedings with regard to sugar. The subject of sugar is one of great complexity in its practical application, more especially in regard to the drawbacks allowed on refined sugar when ex ported from the country where it has undergone manufac ture. On the proposition of the French Government, most of the countries which possess an important sugar refining trade have agreed to send representatives to Paris to con sider the detailed regulations now in force on the subject. Hitherto each country has been accustomed to allege against the others that what are called drawbacks are really bounties. It is of great importance to the European trade in this cardinal article that a common understanding should be arrived at. Nothing will be done in the course of the in quiries in Paris to bind the judgment of the Executive Go vernment, much less of the House of Commons ; but if legislation on sugar were postponed we should approach the consideration of the details with advantage when we have before us the results of this comprehensive and minute in quiry. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps the most important argu• ment for tea as bearing immediately on the case is that the present duty on tea is much higher than the corresponding duty on sugar. (Hear, hear.) I will take not the prices of tea or sugar at this moment, but the ordinary averages. s considerationgreatest question importance jn . s The duty o n t ea i s more t h an 100 per cen t ., w hil e th e d u t y on to r s be u lei ga efo r ft i h s tths only equal to about a h a lf of the value of the article. I n a appeared t i ( c a e teiena (Hear, the, the hearovernmen. G re d ao i r s v. t )e r r i n b B u m t ye i o n n at reduction of duty we can much more considerably lower the price of tea than of sugar. The price of a hundred weight of sugar, duty paid is, on an average, about 355. If we take off 3s. to reduce the duty to a minimum, it brings the price to 325., which is a reduction of about 8 per cent. On the other hand, the price of a pound of tea is 35., and if we take oft 5d,, that reduces it to 2s. 7d,, or about 14 per cent. It will, therefore, be obvious to the committee that we have reason to anti c i pate a more considerable and buoyant effect from the reduction o f t h e intentiondu duty on the Governmento n sugar. (li to ea p r, ro h p e o a s r e .) to the nce' it is the committee to reduce the duty on tea to Is , per lb. ( Cheers.) We also propose that the reduction shall take effect immediately after the resolution has been adopted by the house. In point of form there is no necessity for a resolution, but one will be submitted, because that is the simplest mode of ob taining the jud gment o f t h e h ouse. W e i n t e nd to take the re•oluti on on Thursday week, and to report it on F r id a y. We are of o pi n i on that the tea duties should be grante d only s tth a e aye year i hunen g fnehAr sugaruatg questionu s a h t e , ya u l po ß fab 6 rep : ei . I l reduced nr lni must t noexannual, nott unpresumeduty it t yii t n hopes no: that it will b e considered togerum ether e with the duty on it is most convenient to renew the tea duty only until the period I have named. The committee will understand that if the proposal to reduce the duty on tea to Is. is adopted, it will be a final measure as far as we can presume to look for ward into the future. The financial result of the change will betas follows :—ln 1862-3 we consumed 77,500,00011 a. of tea, which paid £5,497,00e; in 1863-4 if we went on without any change in the law we should estimate for a consumption of 79,636,0001 b., which would yield £5,640,000. The loss of sd. per lb. on that amount would be £1,659,000. We think, however, we may venture to reckon upon an increased con sumption in the first year of 6,000,0001 b , producing £300,000, and in that case the loss would be only £1,359,000. We, therefore, reckoa on a net loss on the Budget Estimate of £1,300,000. This is not a case in which ocular demon stration is at all necessary, hut my hon. friend the mem ber for Lancaster, mistrusting, I suppose, the intelligence of the committee, has been good enough, at the close of his long campaign as a leader of the movement for the reduc tion of the tea duty, to for ward to me two small parcels, one labelled "a pennyworth of tea at 15.," and the other "a pennyworth of tea at Is. 5d." (A laugh.) The matter is one of considerable importance, because it sometimes happens, when duties of this kind are reduced, that a por tion of the profits goes into the pockets of the dealer; but my hon. friend, a man of the highest character and honour, possessing the confidence of the whole mercantile world, especiaby of the East India and China trade, has pledged himself to me personally that in every case the man who buys a pennyworth of tea under the new duty shall have the same increase over what he would have bought under the old duty, as is represented by the large packet which I hold in my right hand, compared with the small packet which I hold in my left hand. (Hear, and laughter) It will be recollected that the estimate of receipts from the income tax for 1863-4, taking the tax at 95. in the pound, was that the tax would produce in the course of the financial year £10,500,000. A reduction of the tax to 7d. would cause a diminution in the year's receipts of £2,350,000, or £1,175,000 for each penny of the 9d. That would be the loss upon the tax for the whole year, but the whole of the loss would not be felt in the present year. A careful estimate made by the Board of Inland Revenue shows that the loss in the present year would be £1,600,000, and that a further sum of £70,000 would stand over till 1864.5. Then there is also the plan which I recently submitted to the committee for the relief of minor incomes. For an entire year the loss from that source would be £400,000; for the actual financial year we take it at £300,000. It therefore follows that you may re duce the income tax 2d. in the pound for the whole com munity, and you may likewise adopt a further plan of relief for minor incomes, at a cost to the revenue in the present year of £1,900,000, with a further prospective charge of £850,000, Here, in passing, I cannot refrain from calling the attention of the committee to a subject of considerable interest, and reiterating an opinion which I ventured to ex press in a former session, but which was received with some not unnatural scepticism—the opinioa, namely, that the change by which we take up three-quarters of the income tax in the year in lieu of only one-half as be fore, is a change of the greatest and most beneficial im portance. When we took only one-half in the year the effect was this—we legislated under the pressure of great necessity and only got half of what we wanted, while, on the other hand, when we repealed the tax or remitted a portion of it one-half of the whole remission went, not into the year for which we were making provision, but into the year beyond, as to the peculiar necessities of which we were entirely ignorant. We have unw by, means of the change just mentioned got the income tax much more in hand, but I suppose it is necessary that we should always be one full quarter in arrear. It is necessary, I mean, in England. Our Scotch friends ate in a more happy position, because they collect the whole of the tax within the year. We cannot do so in England, but we have devised means for levying three quarters, which enables us to make our finan cial arrangements with more certainty and success, and with more immediate reference to the necessities of the State, than before. (Hear.) As the system of collection now stands, £1,900,000 out of,a total loss of £2,750,000 will come upon the present year, but only £1,483,000 out of the whole effect of the changes we are proposing would have come upon the present year if the plan had been continued of levying two instead of three quarters of the tax within the year. (Hear.) I shall now, with the permission of the committee, put together the various remissions, so as to bring them under one view. The relief upon the small charges— that is, the loss for the year—will be £143,000. The relief to minor incomes will be £300,000. The re lief to the consumers of tea will be £1,666,000, but the loss to the revenue for the year will be only £1,300,000. The loss for the year from a reduction of 2d. in the general rate of the income tax will be £1,600,00 0 . The total loss for the year will be £3,343,000. But I wish to call particular attention to the fact that a further loss of £898,000, nearly the whole of it due to the income tax, but some of it to the small charges, will fall upon the financial year 1864-5. We incur a loss for the present year of £3,343,000; but we ask the house to give its legislative sanction to changes which between the present year and the next will bring about a loss of £4,241,000. When I add to that total loss to the State the further relief which the consumer will derive from a part of the duty on tea being made up by increase consumption, it appears that the whole amount of remission of taxation which you are to-night asked to take into consideration is £4,601,000. (Hear.) The I.l7cral 1-..0r.r.h,5. Oa I ,t.kod kn khc nenm mittee in giving an estimate of income for the present year must be corrected as follows :—For the Customs, instead of £54,180,000, it will be necessary to take £22,737,000; for the income-tax, instead of £10,500,000, it will be necessary to take £8,625,000 ; and there is an addition to other branches of inland revenue amounting to £58,000. The surplus before the deductions, but including the various minor changes by which we propose to raise additional sums of money, was £3,874,000, and hence, the loss by remission being £3,343,000, there is a remaining surplus of £531,000. With that surplus we do not propose to part—(hear) —and we trust, for many reasons, the Committee will give us its support in resisting any efforts, however well meant, to diminish it. (Hear.) Looking to the state of the country, the scale of our expen diture, and the condilion of the world, her Majesty's Go vernment feel it would be inconsistent with their duty to propose to the Committee the retention of a less surplus than this, and they confidently and earnestly appeal to the Committee for the support which I have asked against any attempt to wrench it out of their hands. With respect to our plan as a whole, it is not, at any rate, one which pi e tends to originality. The public had anticipated in themain the proposals we were about to make. That has not been owing to premature disclosures, but to the state of the facts. The state of the facts, the bearing of the public interests, and what had taken place in former years, distinctly indi cated within certain limits what should be the course of Government, if it sought to do justice to the country, or to obtain the favour of the House of Commons. With regard to the tea duty, for example, in addition to other reasons which weighed with us, one was the position which had been given to the question in a previous discussion in this house. In 1860 it was the claim of the tea duty which her Majesty's Government thought themselves b elnd to weigh carefully against the claim of the duty on paper, and it was the claim of the tea duty which in 1861 hon. gentlemen sitting op posite deemed it their duty, as the strongest claim which could be made, to offer in opposition a) the claim of the duty on paper. If there is to be a claim of owner ship in tee principal parts of this proposal, it belongs, perhaps, to those who first published them to the world, and I am not aware to whom it could be given with greater credit—for the Government are not disposed to contest the point of honour—than to my right hon. friend the member for Cambridge, who last year proposed a motion which certainly came to an untimely or even a vio lent death at the moment, but which has reappeared, 1 trust, under happier circumstances, and which has formed the basis of a plan of the Government, Sir, it is no motive of dissuasion to us vita respect to any financial proposals that they should have already found favour in other quar ters. If we felt bound in regard to any former plan to fight resolutely for our own proposals, and against those of others, it has been from a sense of public duty. But if the time arrives when we are enabled, compatibly with and in obee dience to our public duty, to submit to the house plans which have beenalready declared to be the favourite plans of others, we, so far from being deterred on that account from making those proposals, are the better pleased to think that it is in our power, as we hope it may be, to unite the general senti ment of the house, and to secure its approbation, without distinction of section or party, to measures for the relief of the country. (Hear.) This is the state of the case with re spect to these plans. But before sitting down I will refer, if the house will permit me, to what 1 said in a former part of my speech, and also venture to submit a few facts which appear to me to be full of interest. Sir, in commencing my statement I had to make, and I frankly made, the admission that the state of tension to which our finances had been placed for the last four years had been raised to a somewhat higher degree in consequence of the remission of duties which we proposed in 1860. Now, as we are passing out, I trust, of that exceptional period, I wish to state exactly to to the house two things—first of all, what has been the general state of our account during the last four years, con sidered as one account ; and, secondly, I wish respectfully to present to the house the facts which I think—without in the slightest degree desiring to impugn the opinions or con duct of others—demonstrate that we were justified, notwith standing the amount of the expenditure and the calls upon the public purse, in asking the house on a former occasion not to desist from the prosecution of the great work of commercial reform. Fi rs t, as regards the account of the country for the last fou r y ears , I will place it in a form which I trust will be intelligible to every one, and will be comprised in but a few words. I take the revenue and ex penditure on this principle—first of all, I charge against the account everything in the nature of special resource, and I also credit it with special repayments made towards the re duction of the public debt. Taking the income and expen diture of the last four years together, there is a balance of deficit amounting to £1,061,000. The expense of fortifica tions in the same period has been £2,070,000. The malt credits and other s ums taken up which did not belong to those years were £2,472,000. But the sums paid away during those years to meet charges belonging to former years, particularly the drawbacks on duties abolished, which were repayments of revenue received in former years, and the charges for former wars, have been £1,292,000. So that the balance of special receipts during those tour years is £1,180,000. The repayments of advances during the four years, in excess over the advances made, have been £2,375,000; and the net decrease of the balance has been £526,000. Ani b 0 the total slim which we have used up II exclude altogether Ireland, because Ireland was not taxed - in 1812, and would, therefore, disturb the computation. I ~ l so exclude Inm:tied below Al5O for the same reason. The income tax, at 7d. in the pound in 1842, attaching to Great Britain only, and only to incomes above Xl6O I was assessed upon an amount of income reaching £156,000,000. Upon the very same area, with the same limitations, in 1861 the amount of assessed income was £221,000 ; 000, and I am not aware that there has been any change in the machinery of the tax, or any improv went in the powers of levying the tax, as compared with the powers of escaping it, that will in any way account for the difference. The difference amounts to no less than £65.000,000 of annual income, or two sevenths of the whole annual taxable income of the country in the area described. That is a most remarkable result, but there is a feature of that result which, when carefully ex amined, is yet more remarkable, and that is the accelerated rate of increase in the last 3 ear. I again invite the attention of the committee for two minutes. I compare the two periods before 1853 and since 1853, when the basis was altered. In ten years from 1842 to 1852 inclusive, the t .xable income of the count' y, as nearly as we can; make out, increased by 6 per cent ; but in 8 years, from 1853 to 1861, the income of the country again increased from the basis taken by 20 per cent. That is a fact so strange es to be almost incredible. [Sir S. Northcote.—lt is Australia.] Australia I Oh, no; the right hon. gentleman is lost in the depths of heresy on that point. If I may presume to suggest a cause, I would sug gest two—first of all the enormous, constant, rapid develop ment of mechanical power, saving human labour, and the extension of machinery; but that has been in operation for the last 100 years, extending on all hands the economy of labour ; the real and new cause that has been in opc etion has been the legislation of Parliament setting free the in dustry and intelligence of the British people. (Hear.) That is the state of the case as regards the wealth of this country. I must say for one, I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my belief that it was confined to the classes who are in easy circumstances. This takes no cog nizance at all of the condition of the labouring population. The augmentation I have described, and which is founded, I think, upon accurate returns, is an augmentation entirely confined to the classes possessed of property, Now, the augmentation of capital is of indirect benefit to the labourer, because it cheapens the commodity which in the business of production comes into direct competition with labour. (Hear.) But we have this profound, and, I must say, in estimab'e consolation, that while the rich have been growing richer the poor have been growing less poor. Whether the extremes of poverty are less extreme than they were I do not presume to say, but the average condition of the British la bourer, we have the happiness to know, has improved during the last 20 years in a degree which we know to be extraordi nary, and which we may almost pronounce to be unexampled in the history of any country and of any age. (Cheers.) That is a result upon which we are entitled to look with the greatest satisfaction and with the greatest happiness, because, after all, let us recollect that when we speak of the expenditure of Governments we speak of that which is taken out of the earnings of the people, and there is hardly any country and hardly any period in which these earnings have ex tended to give to the labouring community a sufficiency, much less a general abundance, even of the prime necessa ries of food, of clothing, and of fuel. And if we have been enabled by proceedings of ours, taking within these walls, to raise the standard of comfort, and to diminish the fearful gap which existed half a century ago between the absolute necessities of the labouring man and his means of supplying them, we have accomplished a work for which the name of the Parliaments of this time will be blessed through all ages. (Cheers.) Many years ago, Sir Robert Peel referred with the greatest authority to the devouring character of the naval and military establishments maintained by the Governments throughout Europe. I am afraid that since the time in which he spoke the evil has grown much more intense than it was, for in no quarter have those establishments diminished, but in almost every quarter they have increased, and financial during the four years, in order to meet the public expendie ture, has been £7,212,000. And having referred to the state of the balances, I may here saY that it is my intention to submit to the house resolutions for paying off the halllion of Exchequer Bonds which will fall due in May ; and that not in the least degree upon the supposition that there is any special obligation connected with that particular descrip tion of debt, but simply because I think it will be a con • venient operation. It is also my intention, lam bound to say, viewing the state of the country, and especially of Lancashire, to ask the house for power to re-borrow that money in case of need during the year, but without any serious expectation at present of being called upon to exer cise it. Well, £7,212,000 is the sum that was used up in the course of those four years for extraordinary expendi ture. On the other side we have redeemed out of the balances an amount of debt equal to £1,883,000, and out of expenditure in the form of terminable annuities the amount redeemed, or rather paid towards redemption, has been £5,501,000. The total amount of money, therefore, taken out of the income of those four years for the redemp tion of debt has been £7,384,000, against the sum which the same four years have had applied to their own uses, though not derived from the taxation of the country—namely, e 7,212,000 ; or, in point of fact, the two sides of the account are as nearly as possible balanced. During those four years, it is fair to bear in mind, we had to defray extraordinary charges from the resources of the year, arising from two principal causes. We had ;,o meet a 000,000 of direct war expenditure, chiefly for China—an account which, as far as I am aware, has never before in our financial history been borne out of the resources of the year. 'We likewise had to meet heavy expenses for the reconstruction or transforma tion of our naval and military departments; and, according to the best computation we can frame, we have had on that account to spend £8,0J0,000 more, making a total sum of £16,000,000 during the four years paid away for those pur poses. But, sir, the house will, I think, expect that I should make a statement to them—after the varied experience of that period —upon the condition of one or two branches of our trade. And certainly a portion at least of the facts to which I hava to call their attention appears to ene to de serve all the attention that can be given to them. The re • peal of the paper duty is a measure of which it is very diffi cult to trace the effects witn prevaion. In point of fact, it is only by a very slow process that the consequence of repeal ing an Excise duty is usually developed. In the case of glass, soap, and other articles, it has been so, and I have no reason to suppose it will be otherwise in regard to paper. But it is remarkable that although the diminution of the export trade in cotton had necessarily led to a great decrease in the consumption of paper connected with that trade, which is extremely large, yet we have the evidence of a very large increase in the consumption of paper in this country. There is enough, I think, entirely to justify the faith with which those who urged the repeal of that duty have looked for ward to its probable results. I for one am surprised, I con fess, at the amount of foreign paper imported into this kingdom. Our imports of foreign paper of all descriptions in 1856 were 15,767 cwt. In 1862 they were 193,639 cwt. Those imports form very nearly 20 per cent. of what the manufacture was in the days of the Excise duty. But what is most satisfactory is, that together with this vast increase in the imports of foreign paper there certainly has been a considerable increase in the manufacture of British paper, We have no power, as the house is well aware, of following minutely the amount of paper that is made ; but we are able to do two things. We can first of all follow carefully the amount of British paper which is exported, and next we can register and record the amount of the materials brought into the country for the manufacture of paper. The amount of British paper of all kinds that was exported in 1858 was 115,491 cwt. In 1862, the first year of the repeal of the duty, the amount exported was 149,326 cwt., showing an increase of 34,000 cwt. A word as to the import of rags—and 1 trust the committee will not grudge a moment for this point—(hear, hear)—because it is really tragical, it is shwa funereal, to revert to the dark anticipa- Lions once entertained as to the total banishment almost of thlt valuable article from the markets of this country. In 1856 the import of rags for making paper into this country was 10,287 tons, In 1860 it had risen largely—viz ,to 16,154 tons. lam bound to say that that increase in 1860 was due in a very great degree to the anticipations enter tained till the month of June that the duty would be con tinued. However, in 1862, the first year of the repeal of the paper duty, the import of rags rose again to 23,943 tons. (Hear, hear.) What has taken place during the past year with respect to the paper trade ? It is no discredit at all to the British papermakers, but it is a very marked and in structive sign of the operation of excise duties in a manu facture of this kind, into which science is introduced, that we should compare the the fate of the British papermaker in his own country, in the late International Exhibition, with the fate of his foreign rival. The British papermaker at that Exhibition was on his own ground; the foreigner had to come here ; and it is natural to suppose that the British manufacture was more fully represented than the foreign. At any rate, what was the state of facts in regard to the medals and honourable mentions, delivered, I pre sume, by a competent and impartial jury ? Eight medals, I believe, were awarded to British papermakers, 16 to French papermakers, and 15 to Prussians. That appears to me to be a significant and important fact with respect to the nporation of amiss duties and restrictions Ln a manufac ture giving scope for the application of science. As re spects the article of wine, there has been a small increase of £30,000, satisfactory as far as regards revenue, and in quantity of 109,000 gallons. French wine hassomewhat diminished, which was quite to be expected after the very large increase that took place in former years. Portuguese wine has also diminished. The great increase during the last year has been in Spanish wines, amounting to 290,000 gallons. (Hear, ht. ar.) One word with regard to what will be viewed with painful interest, our trade with the United States, because of its importance to the country, and the effect produced on it by the secondary action of those cala mities from which the continent of North America suffers so frightfully; and also with regard to our trade with France, because this is the first time when it could be said that it has been a whole year at work. The export of British goods to the United States in 1859 was £22,553,000; in 1862 it was £14,398,000, showing a decrease of £8,154,000. The export of foreign and colonial goods to the United States had in the meantime increased. They were in 1859 £1,864,000, in 1862 they were £4,052,000, an increase of £2,188,000, but nearly the whole of that increase was represented by the article of cotton wool, taken from this country to the United States, which was no less than £1,721,000. The case of our trade with France is very different. In 1859, the last year before the treaty, the export of British commodities to France was £4,754,000; in 1860, when the treaty was in very prrtial operation indeed, the exports were £5,250,000; in 1861, when the treaty took effect, towards the close of the year, they rose to £7,145,000, without including the article of corn, which made a further increase ; but as it was entirely due to the casualty of a bad harvest in France, whereas it was a, great supply from foreign markets to this country, it would disturb the calculation if I took that into account. The exports rose to £7,145,000, showing an in- crease of £2,391,000, and in 1862, with the treaty in opera- tion all the year, again rose to £9,210,000, showing an in- crease or £4,456,000; in point of tact, doubling their amount before the treaty. That does not set forth the whole of the advantage, because in foreign and colonial produce the augmentation was yet more remarkable; for I need not remind the committee that the foreign and colonial pro duce that we send to France we have ourselves obtained by exchange for British produce, so that increase in the export of foreign and colonial produce is effectively an increase in the export of British manufactures. The foreign and colonial produce sent to France in 1859 was £4,800,000, and 1862, £12,614,000. The total amount of deficits have become almost the rule in every country. (Hear, hear.) Great efforts have been made in France to retrieve them ; but, although we know that great energy and talent have been used with that object, it remains yet to be seen to what extent those efforts will be successful. Italy, with her fortunes and her destinies yet hanging in the balance, is, unhappily accumulating debt from year to year at the present moment with a rapidity which must make her best and fastest friends tremble. (Hear, hear.) That is what we see going on abroad. I observe that M. Fould, in a recent address to the Senate, speaks in terms of deprecation of what he calls expenditure of emulation, and he expresses a hope that such an expenditure is likely to be diminished. (Hear.) I am sure it is easy for every right-minded man most fervently to re-echo that prayer. (Rear.) It is impos sible to deny the relation which exists between the general expenditure and between the defensive and military expen diture of the different countries of Europe. Of course it has been the duty of her Majesty's Government, in forming their estimates of expenditure, to consider first the honour, the interests, and the security of the country, and along with that honour, with those interests, and with that secu rity, the deliberate judgment given by the House of Com mons in the course of the last Session of Parliament. But subject to those considerations 1 trust I may alko say on my own part and on that of my colleagues, after reading the eloquent denunciations of the Finance Minister of France, that we have additional satisfaction in submitting a plan which contemplates not an inconsiderable diminution in the burdens of the people if we may hope that that diminu tion will be accepted in other lands, and be construed there as a friendly acceptance of a friendly challenge—(loud cheers)—if we may hope that what we propose, and what Parliament shall accept, will become an innocent but power ful provocative to similar proceedings and similar tenden cies in other countries. (Cheers.) It will be an additional satisfaction to us over and above the benefit which, as we trust, the British people will derive from an alleviation of their burdens, if we may hope that we are contributing to strengthen tendencies which may exist elsewhere on behalf exports to France, which in 1859 was £9,561,000, had in 1862 gone up to £21,824,000. (Hear, hear.) In fact, while we had a decrease in the total trade to the United States of £6,618,000, that decrease was a great deal more than made up by the increase in the trade to France, for the augmenta tion was £12,265,000. The effects of the cotton famine on our general trade of course it is impossible for us to miti gate, so far as I know, by legislation; and I took the oppor tunity in 1861 of showing the immense stimulus that had of peace, of order, and of civilisation, and that we are assist ing, in however humble a degree, to allay unhappy jealou sies and to produce a better and more solid harmony among the great civilised nations of the world. (The right hon. gentleman concluded, amid loud cheers, by proposing the first resolution for the increase of the duty on chicory.) Mr. WHITE expressed the strongest satisfaction with the admirable budget announced by the right hon. gentle man. It was satisfactory to feel that they had one states man, at all events, in power who consistently carried into effect when in office the proposals which he advocated when in opposition. He thought the income tax a very good one, but people would never be made to understand that there was not inequality in the mode in which it was levied. He believed that the working classes still paid an undue pro portion of the public burdens. In conclusion the hon. gen tleman thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the wise and beneficent policy he had adopted. Lord R. MONTAGU complained that the whole scope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy was to lighten the taxes on the rich, and not to touch those which pressed upon the poor. Mr. CRAWFORD on the other hand declared, speaking ing in behalf of a great mercantile community, that he was prepared to express perfect concurrence in the financial ar rangements of the right hon. gentleman. He approved Of the distinction which had been drawn between tea and sugar, the more especially as any increase in the consumption of tea led to a still larger increase in the consumption of sugar and also of the abolition of the petty charges in commerce. Mr. VANCE urged that the tax on spirits was retained at so high a point, that illicit distillation was the conse quence. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the subject into consideration. Mr. SCULLY complained that, instead of diminishing, even then been produced to the total trade of the country by the reduction of Customs duties in the former year, and the right hon. gentleman proposed to increase the taxation of Ireland, Such a thing had never before occurred in any country as that which had taken place in Ireland, namely, to have upwards of two millions of her people cut off since 1847. Ho was frequently asked in Ireland why the Go vernment did not encourage some remunerative system of emigration, so as to remove the unfortunate people of that country where they could obtain some return for their la bour. There were three ways by which assistance could be given to Ireland, namely, by arterial drainage, by a judicious system of emigration, and by giving encourage- now in 1863 I am able to point to results operated by the ment to public works, especially railways. If these enor• mous taxes were to be levied on the country, he wished t o arrangements made by France, under the able management of my hon. friend the member for Rochdale—(cheers)—and have the working classes benefited by them.' I confidently put it to the committee to justify her Majesty's Mr. POWEL L regretted one omission in the speech of Government in the opinion they entertain that it was a the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, no announce matter of vital consequence that we should endeavour to ap- ment of an intention to reduce the duty en fire insurance. • ply to the trade and industry of the country that stim u l us He wished also to know whether his scheme or taxing cha which we believed and knew would be given through the rities applied to endowed schools and grammar schools. If medium of judicious reduction and abolition. It is quite so, he trusted that when the masters' salaries were paid out true that in 1860 we were obliged to have an additional ld. of the balances they would not be called upon to lay in of income tax because of these reductions, but I think it come tax twice over. was worth having that additional ld. when we consider that Col. BARTELOTT hoped another year would not be the effect of that legislation has been that in this period of allowed to pass over without the right hon. gentleman severe trial to the industry of the country, not millions only, dealing with the malt tax with a view to its reduction. but tens of millions of that industry, have in all probabi- Sir F. CROSSLEY concurred generally with the scheme lily been put in motion, and kept in motion owing to the which had been proposed, and expressed a hope that dur i legislation then adopted. (Hear, h ear .) If th e h ouse w ill ing peace an attempt would b e made to reduce the national bear with me one moment longer—(hear)—l will draw debt by paying off interminable annuities. their attention to a statement that will, I think, at once in- Mr. P. A. TAYLOR gave his hearty thanks to the terest and surprise them. The i ncome t ax h as now b een in Chancellor of the Exchequer for the alteration of the tea operation for 19 years. It w as i m p ose d part l y w ith a v i ew duties. He regretted, however that he had not adopted to supply a deficiency, but in a great de g ree with a view to the same poli cy w i th regard to sugar. ' With respect to the developing the trade and i n d us t r y o f th e c o untry, and income tax, be thought the country had a right that it thereby bringing about an increase in the wealth and corn- should be either abolished or made permanent and equit fort of all classes of the community. After 19 years, and a able. succession of different assessments, we are now in a condi- Sir H. WILLOUGHBY had heard with great pleasure tion to form some judgment as to the additions that have that there was a bona fide surplus of £3,874,000. He did been made to the means and resources of the country. I not in any way quarrel with the mode in which the right have made it my study to examine the subject with as much hon. gentleman proposed to dispose of that surplus, as to precision and rigour as I could. The statement I will which it was much to be regretted that the house had no submit may be capable of being further sifted in such a further information than that which they had heard from manner as to modify in a greater or less degree its results, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He cordially I don't prf tend it is infallible ; lam sure it is remarkable; joined in the wonderment excited by the right hon. gentle- I believe it is correct,—at least no pains have been spared tot man's statement of the increase in the expenditure during make it so. In order to be as accurate as possible I don't the last four years; but had the right hon. gentleman gone compare the entire income-tax of 1862 with that of 1843, but , further back, and instituted a comparison between the ex- I compare the income-tax minus that portion of it which penditure of 20 years ago and the expenditure of the present only represents public taxation, because it i s quite plain if day, the wonderment would have been infinitely greater. we have several millions added to the income in England (Hear') It was as clear as the sun at noonday that the ex from public establishments that does not represent additions penditure had been carried to an extent utterly unjustifiable to the real wealth of the country. Therefore, take ache • in the present condition of the country. However, it was too dole Aas representing property, railways, mines, &c. ; B late as regarded the present year to effect any reduction, as representing farming profits; D as representing corn- but in another year they must begin earlier, and let the de merce and professions ; and so much of E as belongs to mend for reduced expenditure anticipate the den and for private establishments that is the basis or area of taxation, reduced taxation, In conclusion, the hon. baronet expressed his strong conviction that when the balance came to be ad justed the Imperial Treasury would be found indebted to a much larger extent to the Indian Treasury than the Indian Treasury was to the Imperial Treasury; and that, as the only means of getting rid of the confusion which prevailed with respect to the accounts between the two Administra- Vone, they must entirely separate Indian from British finance. Mr. P. URQUHART reminded the committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken no account of the ordinary increase which, in years uninfluenced by disturb ing causes, arose in the receipts of the customs and excise, which could not be set down as less than £BOO,OOO. But taking that into account, it was quite clear that a sutplus for the present 3 ear might fairly be calculated upon, and that as the past financial operati ns of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although carried out under the most unpropi tious circumstances, had fully ju•tified the confidence of his supporters, so wou'd his arrangements for the future equally merit their adhesion and the approval of the country. The reduction of the tea duties he regarded as a great boon to the labouring classes in Ireland. Mr. LINDSAY, while expressing his approval of the budget as a whole, warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer that be would find the mercantile interests most dissatisfied with his intention not to Interfere with the present soale of sugar duties The resolutions embodying the proposals with respect to chicory were then put from the chair, and a bill was ordered to be introduced on the subject. The chairman then left the chair, and the house resumed. THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVUNING, APRIL 17, 1861 THE LISBURN ELE::TION. The ATTORNEY-LiENERAL then moved that it be referred to the general committee of elections to inquire into the circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the petition of William John Knox and Moses Bullick against the return of Mr. Barbour for the borough of Lisburn. After a few observations from Sir HUGH CAIRNS and Mr. EOUVERIE, The motion was Agreed to. ASSURANCES REGIS FRA.TION (IRELAN'4) BILL Sir R. PEEL moved the second reading of this bill. which he explained to be the same as that which bad come before the house last year, and had been read a second time• Colonel DUNNE moved the adjournment of the debate in consequence of the absence of the Irish members, and the lateness of the hour. Mr. FERRAND seconded the motion. Sir H. CAIRNS supported the motion for the adjourn ment of the discussion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, while admitting that at that late hour of the night it was in vain to make any pro gress with the bill, characterised the opposition which it had encountered as very unfair. 1 he debate was then adjourned. THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE). This bill was read a second time, and referred to a select committee. BAKEHOUSES REGULATION BILL. This bill was read a second time. OFFICE OF SECRETARY AT WAR ABOLITION BILL. This bill passed through committee. JURORS' REMUNERATION BILL. This bill was read a second time. The house adjourned at twenty minutes past one o'clock. COUNTRY MARKETS. ,v .. MANCHESTER—AnaI, 16. An average attendance to-day, with a dull demand for wheat, which maintained last week's prices. Other articles as before, except Egyptian beans, which advanced is per BIRMINGHAM—APRIL 16. English wheat was sold at 48s to 56a for white, and 400 to 54s per 36 stone for red. Barley, new malting, 338 to 42s per qr ; grinding, 24s to 28s Oats, old, 24s to 300 per 30 stone; Irish, 22a to 255. Beans, 40s to 44s_per qr Peas, 40s to 48s per 36 stone. EDINBURGH GRAIN-APRIL 15. A fair supply of farmers' wheat to-day, which met 1 11 slow sale at barely the prices of last week. Wheat on the top 3s Od up average Os 3d up. Barley on the top Os 6d down Oats on the top 2s Od down v Beans on the top is 6d down ... aa av vee e rra r ag a g g ee e Cls is 2d 622 did Total Supply and Sales. Wheat .. 801 qrs Sold 453 qrs Barley... 566 qrs Sold 386 qrs Oats Beans 193 qrs Sold 103 cgs ~ Flour sells as follows : —Whit es , 44 s Od; extras, 41s 6 00 superfine, 39s Od ; fine, 37s Od. CORK—APRIL 16. The following were the quotations this morning :--it e ,„ wheat, 6s dto9 s 6d ; w hit e , 7 s Od t o lls Od , barley, 7 : Od to 98 Od ; oats, 7s 4d to 8s Id. ; black do., 6s 8d to 7s 10d. DERBY SMITHFIELD—APRIL 14. A good supply of fat beasts to-day, and late priee/ were maintained, although the demand was not brisk. The number of sheep was larger, aL d were i n reques t. Fig a good show. Fat and store calves plentiful. Beet bid to lid Veal 7/d to 03 Mutton .... £4 dto Od Pork Lamb —d to —d Rough fat, 4s Od per atone' Hides, 3d to 44d; calf skins, 6d to 6d. Foreign Mail Packet List. MAILS DUB. A.uranlia and Mauritius, via South am pt on ~Apr. 19' via Marseilles .. Apr. 1 .0 Brazil and Cape Verds, by British packet. May 4 ' Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St. Helena., May ° . d. China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southanipton.Apr. Is via Marseilles ...Apr. I r . Falkland Island. May ,7; .. Gibraltar, via Southa m pt on India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton... Apr. ~' via Marseilles Apr. 1 f; India (Bombay), via Southampton .. Apr. h via Marseilles Apr. 4 " . Portugal.... May 4. Malta, Egypt, and Aden, via Southa m pt on Apr- 1". via Marseilles Newfoundland .. .. May 6. Apr. 16. Oporto and Vigo U. S. and British N. America, by Brit. packet.... Apr. 15 ' by U.S. packet.... ,0, by Canadian packet. Apr. . 1 ., W.C. of Africa, Madeira, an d T ener i ffe Ap r. „ lth Bahamas, via New York May i' Mexico ....Apr. l• 8, All parts of West Indies, including Chili, Peru, k Ap r . 13' California, and British Colu m bi a.. ..... ..... J TREPUBLIO-HOUSE BILL. —A public meeting Ic a° called by the Mayor of Southampton on Tuesdoi evening, at the request of a number of the inhabitants , t° , petition parliament in faveur of closing public-houses on Su tt days. The meetin g was he ld at the Guildhall, which 1".4 ; crammed to suffocation. Mr, Ald erman P a lk was called to the chair. The opposition to the object of the meeting °, ll° , so great, and ca use d suc h con f us i on, that the chairman di.,11 solved the meetin g . Thi s di sso l u ti on was reca ll e d, 13 _,," the confusion increased to such a d egree, an d a tires; of the peace appeared so immi nen t, th at the police had ~0 be called in. Ultimately a r eso l ut i on was passe d to fr . . effect that the members for th e borough should be called n " to render every oppositi o n possible to Mr. Somee's bil l its Parliament. The ex-Queen of Naples held a little court a t th e railway station when she passed through Lyons t he 1, fa other day on her re t urn to those conjugal duties whiz..., A unexplained re asons, h ave been long suspended. A l'l tik" e t codini in Paris belonging to the Neapolitan emigration w. e to Lyons. Th ey were asked to a railway dinner, at whit Count d'Aquill propose d as a t oast, " Th e Royal Fooll9t and its speedy res t orat i on. " It was o b serve d t h e you -4 Queen looked very sad. [ADVERTISEMENTI—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pi- 118 4 / Lives saved—Not a oay passed without new cases of G e es being brought to the knowledge of the discoverer of 0 00 , peerless remedb-s. For ulcers, sor es , b urns , s ki n digefl! 00 , and similar maladies the insufficiency of ordinary aPPe e ell tions is admi'ted by all, but none thus afflicted have et ) disappointed in their expectations when a lair trial nab b ,, e given to Holloway's ointment and pills. The pain willed 7-1, swel . ling usually attending this class of ailments mulish daily under this cooling and soothing unguent ; O f the purifying powers of th e pills will rid the syste o of everything which is obnoxious, and so give full P to the healing properties of this matchless ointment. _4 London: Printed and Published by WILLIAM AlCnoi/g 0.0 of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Sux Offi ce ' ti" Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Middlesex.—Friday, April 17, 1863. Births. CARSTAIRS.—On. the 13th inst., at Hailes House, f o ilit# ol field, near Liverpool, Mrs. Drysdale CaratAire, daughter. ho' CoLLINs.—On the 11th inst., at Mortimer-road, St. . 0 - - r wood, the wife of Captain Collins, of a son. .4101 0 LAWRENCE.—On the 16th inst., at 32, Gloucester-gax-of Hyde park, the wife of Alf re d Lawrence, ESCI" - daughter. Marriages. ~A HAIGH—GRENTELL—On the 15th i ns t. at at Cw 4 ~- , ,,113, Lancashire, Reginald, th e secon d son o f * Thomas 1- . 1 ,j 0 rt4 Esq., Elm Hall, Wavertree, near Liverpool, to fourth daughter of Admiral Grenftll, . 1- 7 w 4l HAI NWORTH--ROBERTS.—On the 15th frig. at Church, Kenti s h- town , H enry H a i nwor th.'Esq....,, uO l O War-office, t o L aura A nne, t hi r d d aug h ter o f D Roberts, Esq., Victoria Villas, Kentish-town. Deaths. 10 ,116 BAINBRIDGE.—On the 16th inst., at 86, St. Martin John N. Bainbridge, M.D., aged 63. BARKER.—On the 2d i ns t., -R, at Smyrna, Henry -- ic Barker, Esq., aged 69. , her Hlnn.—On the 16th inst., Anne Ellen, wife of Chrisii ° 6 l3 oo of The Elms, Wanstead, ESSCX, and 47, l l ' High-street, city. 1 11°/1° RICH.—On the 13th inst., at Ilershani, Anthony Esq., aged 94. • W l° SWINBURNE.—On the 13th i ns t ., at T he Close, .-,a,i-I:artleP Jane, relict of th e l ate M a j or-General John ST"- aged 70. TODD.— On th e 12th inst., at Woodburn, Torquel• 1311:110011 Todd, Esq., J.P. an d 1) L., late of Bunciana G ust Donegal.