The Sun. — London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

mate the expenditure for the future at 50,785,0001., and hope to make a saving on general estimates of 978,9851., and on the naval expenditure of 776,0001. I consequently see m y way to an income of 50,154,9004, notwithstanding the remission of taxes on bricks and other commodities, and may therefore cal culate, I think safely, on a surplus of 2,521,000/. on the sth of April. The Customs, I calculate, will produce 9 ,400,000/. There will be a farther decrease this year, owing to the passing of the Act last session, which did not come into full operation till the 10th of October, and parties, no doubt, reserved their purchases till that period.—(Hear, hear.) The probable extent of loss of the full year was estimated at about 500,000/., and the experience of the year fully justified the estimate. —(Hear, hear.) In the two quarters ending in Ja nuary, the amount of the stamp duties was 245,0001 loss than the corresponding period of former years, and as far as the present quarter is concerned, I believe there will be an equal falling off, making 250,000/. for the half-year, and 500,000/. for the entire year.—(Hear, hear.) Allowing for that reduction, I take the estimate for the yield of the stamp duties at 6,310,0004—(Hear.) The taxes and the property-tax I take at the same amount as last year, namely taxes, 4,348,000/, property-tax, 5,380,0004 In the Post-office there will be 10,0001. more this year, namely, 830,000/. The Crown lands stand upon the same footing as last year, though I think there will be some slight redaction of expenditure. The Crown lands then will yield 160,0004; the navy receipts will be 262,000/. ; old stores are rather higher than last year, namely, 480,0001. These items put to gether will make the gross income of the whole year 5 9 ,140,000/.—(Cheers.) Sir, I now come to the charges, and here it will probably afford the House some satisfaction, if I state that there will ire a decrease in the charge for debt, arising out of a very large purchase of terminable annuities that has already been effected.—(Hear, hear.) There will also be some reduction in the charge of the consolidated fund. The charge on the funded debt, including annuities, will be 27.688.000/. and the charge for interest on Exchequer. bills 404,0001., making together 28.092,0004—(E-tr. hear.) The charge on the consolidated fund will be 2,600.0001.. making the gross charge on the funded debt and c fle,lidated fund, taken together, 30,69 2,0004—(Hear.) The charge for the army, including the commissariat department, I take at 6,593,9451.; for the navy, at 6,537,0554; and for the ordnance, at 2 ,424,1711.—(Hear, hear.) There is here some redaction of expenditure, but there will be no reduction of force.—(Hear, hear.) The Government feel that in the present unsettled state of matters on the continent of Europe, it would be incon sistent with the best interests of the country to reduce tha amount of the existing forces.—(Cheers.) I am aware that the whole world appears to be in a compara tive state of peace, bet it must nevertheless be remembered that only a few years have elapsed since we saw some millions of men under arms in the very centre of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) lam free to confess that of late years nothing has occurred to disturb the peace of this country, and I have certainly never been alarmed on that account at the circumstances that were passing around us; but there is the widest difference between unneces sary alarm and an absurd economy.—(Hear, hear.) Those who are best acquainted with these matters know that a great many of our arsenals are not quite in an elk cient state of defence, and therefore any reduction of our forces would involve a responsibility which we are not prepared to encounter.—(Hear, hear.) For my part my conviction is this, however strong, or however just and general the feeling for economy and a reduction of expenditure may be in this House, it will still be the duty of British Legisla tors never to leave their country in an unprotected condition.—(Cheers.) Sir, last year, after certain reduc tions had been made, the estimate for both services was 20,012,000/. It will probably this year be 19,555,000/. Therefore, deducting the vote takers last year for naval excess, and the absolute reduction in the expenditure of this year under the three heads of naval, military, and ordnance services, there will be 246,0004, or nearly a quarter of a million, and the reduction would have been more but for two causes, some of which were of a permanent and others of a temporary nature. lion. Gentlemen will remember that the First Lord of the Admiralty announced last year that it was thought advisable, for the improvement of the condition of the sailor, that the allowance of grog should be stopped and money compensation given. It was found, also, that the provision allowed to the navy was not so great as in other branches of the naval service, and it was thought desirable to improve the condition of the sailor in those respects. Gentleman who sat on the Committee on army estimates will also remember that a question was raised as to the rations allowed to the soldier on service abroad, and that alterations were recommended. The additional charge which arises in this respect is 60,000/. These two items, then, have occasioned an increased expenditure of 140,0004 There are some small additional charges, which are only of a temporary nature, arising from annuities, from the fact that this year includes one day's more pay, and also from annuities chargeable on certain lands belonging to the Ordnance in Ireland. The Miscellaneous Estimates voted last year amounted to 4,650,0001. Of course it is impossible for me to say what the amount of the Miscel laneous Estimates will be this year. There will be this year, als, , , charges of a temporary nature which I propose to take from these estimates, which they have not borne in former years. I propose that the expense of taking the census, which in former years was borne by the local rates, should be included in the estimates, that being an object of public interest which it is quit , - fair and reasonable should be paid out of the public Exchequer.—(Hear.) I believe the expense will be 110,000/. I propose, then, in round numbers, leaving room for any alterations which may be made in the course of the year, to take the mis cellaneous estimates at 4,000,0001. for the year. I estimate the probable expenditure then at 50,247,1711., and taking the inc , ire-. to be as I have already stated, there will be an estimated surplus of 1,892,000/.—(Hear, hear.) The first poitit which I will bring to the consideration or the Committee is to show how these estimates bear on the main question _which I have to submit to it, viz, the renewal of the income-tax.—(Elear.) The amount of the income-tax may be taken in round numbers at 5,400,000/. If the Committee refuse the vote which I am about to submit to tbem, there will be a falling off in the revenue of 5,500,0004, that sum including 100,0001., the amount of the reduction under the Stamp Act of last session. Now, deducting that from the probable amount of surplus revenue, which I have stated at 1,890,0001., there will be a deficiency to the extent of 3,610,000/. In the ensuing year it would not be quite so much, because half of the income tax for the ensaing year is yet receivable, via., 2,700,000/., therefore, in the ensuing year, the deficiency would amount to 910,0001.; but in the subse quent year, and every year thereafter, supposing there be no improvement in the revenue, and no reductions made, the excess of expenditure over revenue would be what I have stated in round numbers, 3,600,0001. When Sir Robert Peel proposed the renewal of the income-tax in 1342, the House would remember, he proposed it on the assumption that there would be a deficit for the year of 2,100,0004 Now if that was a sufficient ground for re-imposing it in 1142, surely the fact he had stated would be con sidered more so as regarded the present year. In that year I opposed the imposition of the income-tax, for I thought then, as I think now, that the grounds upon which it was asked were not sufficient. But I stated at the same time, that if it were to be applied to reducing the duties upon timber, corn, and sugar, then I should have been prepared to support it. I will say, however, that the use which Sir R. Peel made of the income-tax when he got it fully satisfied him in asking for it. In the years 1845 and 1343, I supported the re newal of it, and now entertain the same opinion as I did then, and wishing to carry out that course of commercial policy, and from which the country has benefited so much, I again propose the renewal of it for a limited period. The duties on timber, corn, and sugar having been reduced, to the great benefit of all the consumers in this country, the opinion which I have always entertained fully justifies me in proposing their re-imposition. If the House, however, is not prepared to adopt this course, let me suggest to them what must be the consequence; there must either be a deficiency in the revenue or there must be a reduction in the expenditure to that amount; and I do not believe that any person who has looked into these matters can entertain the opinion that out of an ex penditure of fifteen millions it is possible to effect a reduction of 34- millions. If this be not so, it will be necessary to impose new taxes to that amount, and I ask if the present disposition of the country is at all favourable to the imposition a new taxes? With the common concurrence of the House of Commons we hare been repealing and reducing taxes which pressed heavily upon the industry or the consuming powers of the country.— (Hear, hear.) I do not believe that it will possible to re-impose those taxes, but, on th e contr ary, I believe that many still remain on the statute book which it would be desirable to 'wince, which either in their amount or in their 'node of levy ing- are far more objectionable, • than this. thosewhen oppressive, and unjust taxes have been reduced or repealed, upon raw materials as well as the duties which press up on duties taken off, when the onimports and excise have been so reduced that the consumer can no longer be said to be hardly pressed upon, then the question will arise, whether i t will he bet :r to relieve the consumer still further, or to take off ta portion of the burden upon property. But until t h at is obtained, and eve have carried out to the full our new of commercial policy, I hope that neitherthsisystem another House of Commons will ever refuse that tax which has been so beneficial to this country. I do not think it will be advisable that I should at present go into the details of my proposal, a further opportunity w i ll be afforded for that. I have remon strances enough against various portions of the income-tax, suggesting the reduction of Sche dule A. the abolition of Schedule B, the injustice of tkhodnle D, and I am perfectly- ready to admit that exceedinglygood arguments may be advanced by various Interests against alt except Schedule C. But, after all, I have come to the conclusion that, under all circumstances the fairest and most just mode is that of placing one uniform rate upon all descriptions of income. A question may be raised also upon the mode of levying the tax under Schedule B, but on a future oemsion I shall be ready to discuss that question as fully as it can be' discussed. But: the time will arise for of e t(b d uo is e c iab u ro s , sion of these ques tion 3 when the discussion income-tax colmeso peel y before the House.— therefore, that the same Course hear.) think, oueht to be with r ' espect to adop red in the present year that tai that was adopted on formearkeocwciatsbions. I have only one further observation to make re spect to the income-tax, and that_ is, that I propose for the limited time the renewal of the income-t ix should take place, that the same exemption should be renewed with respect to Ireland as it had hitherto been.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " No, no.") Because I believe, after the shock which property had had in that country, that such a course would be the wisest and best.—(Hear, hear.) Added to that, I think it would be under the circumstances impolitic and cruel not to make that exemp t,.on.—(llear, hear.) I propose of course to re new for the same time the stamp duties in Ireland as heretofore, and I propose to renew the whole for the term of three years. I will also ask the House to come to a decision upon this important subject as early as possihe, because it must be obvious that the financial scheme of the year will depend upon the renewal or non-renewal of the income tax.—(Hear, hear.) If the tax is renewed, then I shall go on with the other measures I propose; but if it is not, then it will give to those Gentlemen who will fill the offices we have now the honour to hold, time to consider the propositions they should bring before the House.—(Laughter and cheers.) Now, Sir, my Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose asked me the other day to make a return, or rather, perhaps, a motion, as I understood him, of the different items of our taxation, but my Hon. Friend hardly seemed aware that he had imposed upon me one of the hardest tasks ever imposed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—because upon this subject the most learned people differed.—(Loud aid continued laughter.) One party stated that he thought the malt-tax was paid by the producer of barley. Now, lam of opinion that the malt duty is paid by the consumers of ale.—(Laughter.) Then, with respect to tobacco, it seems to be thought that the duty upon it was inflicted upon the occupiers of land. Never was there a greater fallacy; why, the fact was, that the duty was upon the foreign producer. Then, with respect to tithes, a great difference of opinion existed. It must therefore be clear to my Hon. Friend that he has called upon me to produce a return, to do which the greatest difficulty existed.—(Hear, hear.) I am willing to state my impression on any question I cau to the House, and acting in that spirit I have had prepared a return of the many items of taxation, and am prepared to state what that document is to the House, in order that it may afford Gentle men some notion of what course I should pursue. I have taken the finance account up to January last. I have taken the gross receipts of Customs, merely taking the amount paid in duty. I have taken the same course with regard to the Excise, making certain omissions. First of all, I have taken the revenue on articles of food, butter, cheese, oranges, sugar, and many other things, producing an income of 20,000,0001., then I have taken the Excise, tobacco, spirits, &c., which produced nearly 11,000,000/., so that it will be perceived that the whole pro duce derived from what we eat, drink, and smoke is 31,820,728/.—(Great laughter.) On gloves, books, opium and other articles of similar manu facture, the returns were 246,2481., showing an advan tage on that department of 764,000/. Then I come to the landed classes, people of property, on whom were levied bills of exchanges and the costs for leases, and all the other charges to which land was liable, and that I find, . including property tax, to amount to 35,100,0371. The trading classes have their own peculiar burthens—there are bills of exchange, promissory notes, insurances, and all the various charges to which a trading community is liable. These I find have produced about 4,650,000/. Then, I think that railways ought to bear their fitting proportion; the ways and means by them bring in 648,0001., making a total income from similar sources of 1,491,000/.—(Hear, hear.) The whole amount of public income derived from the trading and landed classes is consequently about 12,455,0001., and from parochial rates something more than 13,000,0001. Now with the 13,000,0001. derived from parochial rates I have nothing to do. The amount, then, with which I am justified in dealing is 45,415,0001., so that, in fact, if I were only to take the surplus, and allow the income-tax to die out, there would be a deficiency instead of a surplus, and the only sum with which I could deal would be 850,0001. Hon. Gentlemen would remember the different circum stances that prevailed in 1845 and 1848. If the difficulty was great in 1848, how greatly was it increased in 1849. If such was the case then greater reason prevails now, and I am, I conceive, perfectly justified at the present time in adopting the expedient of 1845. Having thus stated the general position of our taxation, I:should wish to say %few words on a proposal which I see was brought forward elsewhere, namely, that there should be an equal or a new division of taxation. Now I think, in the present state of the House, such a result as this would be difficult to arrive at, because I appre hend my Hon. Friends behind me are anxious to remove duties from articles of consumption and the materials of raw manufactures, and re-impose them directly upon the accumulated property of the couutry—(Hear)— while Honourable Gentlemen opposite, judging from what they say, will be equally anxious to remove taxes from property, and impose them in some other shape.—(Hear, hear.) I do not think there fore that any large scheme of this sort would meet with the general favour of the House.—(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Friend of mine has also observed elsewhere, that the surplus we have in hand results from an increase in our taxation.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I do not think this is the case—(Hear, hear)—but the Hon. Gentleman followed up his remark with a proposal that there should be a general change in our mode of levying j the taxes.—(Hear, hear.) It may be said, however, of finance as of politics, that sudden revolutions are inju rious, though in 1842 I agreed to a change in cur fiscal system, but the policy which was then commenced I believe is now firmly established, and instead of reversing it we ought to pursue it, year by year, until those principles propounded in 1842 are fully developed.—(Hear.) That was the course Government had followed ever since it had come into office, and I believe it is the course best calculated to improve the interests of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, having at the request of my Hon. Friend behind me endeavoured to explain the whole tenure of our taxation, and I hope not to the dissatisfaction of the House, I will pass on to notice other topics which it is desirable I should bring under notice.—(Hear, hear.) I have stated that the probable surplus of our taxation next year will be 1,890,000/. ; and it is necessary that I should here ad vert to a remark which I see was made elsewhere, to the effect that we have had a lasting surplus without any reduction in the taxes.—(Hear.) Now, I do not think that is fair, considering what we really have done; for if Hon. Gentlemen will compare the income of the year 1847 with that of the year 1850, they will find that there has been a great reduction of taxation in one way or other, while there has been an increase in the revenue of 739,000/., and a reduction in the cost of the army, navy, and ordnance of the difference between 18,500,0001. in 1547 and 15,391,000/. in 1850.—(Cheers.) The reduction of expenditure in the three years, therefore, has been no less than 3,100,000/.—(Cheers)---and I think, after that, the House will do us the justice to say that we have not been unmindful of economy,— (Cheers.) Now, Sir, I come to the proposal I shall make to the House, on the supposition of course, that the income-tax is to be continued. In the year 1845, Sir Robert Peel pioposed to renew the income-tax, and stated what he should do if that renewal was granted. I propose to follow his ex ample, and to state to the House what we are prepared to do in the event of the House renewing the income-tax.—(Hear, hear.) Of course it is obvious to everybody that what we propose to do must fall to the ground if the income-tax is not renewed.— (Hear, hear.) Now I think the first claim upon us points to some reduction of our debt.—(Cheers.) I stated last year that since the year 1830 we had bor rowed 35,000,000/. ; we have since then paid off 8,000,0004, and therefore up to this time, in 20 years, we have increased our debt by 27,000,0001, and I do not think we ought to stop short now in endeavouring to reduce that sum.—(Hear, hear.) I am one of those who think we ought to make great efforts for the re duction of our debt. I do think that year by year, as we maintain a reasonable surplus, we ought at the same time to make some reduction, however slight, in the debt.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I am happy to say that in the course of the last year we have paid off the amount we borrowed two years ago.—(Hear, hear.) The House will remember that in the year 1848, we borrowed 2,000,000/., and on the sth of January] last we had not only paid off that sum, but the interest too, making together 2,330,0004 The House will admit that it would be essential to main tain a certain portion of the surplus in order to reduce the amount of taxation. lam not disposed to put that portion very high. I stated some years ago, when I sat on the other side of the House, and I have not since changed my opinions, that I thought in round numbers one fiftieth part of this income should be held back to pay off the national debt. Now, with regard to the surplus available for the reduction of taxation I have had a great number of applicants I believe within the last month I have received deputations on the subject of every description of taxes, all stating that the particular taxes which they paid were the most partial, iniquitous, and unjust. Some Hon. Gentlemen in this House came with mire than one deputation, and yet made the very same statement on different taxes, any one of which, if repealed, would have absorbed more than the whole surplus.—(Hear, and laughter.) Among these various taxes I had to decide which, on the whole, if repealed, would benefit the country. It is quite obvious that it would be perfectly impossible for me to reduce taxation to anything like the amount stated; but I hope parties will give me credit that I am desirous at the earliest possible opportu nity to remove the different inequalities of the particular taxes of which they complained. I fully admit there were many claimants whom I should have been glad to meet if I had had a larger surplus. Their claims are postponed till a more favourable op portunity, but they must recolle(:t some taxes must come off before others, and I hope they will think I am proceeding in the directi on th ey w i s h, an d I only trust that th e revenue in future years will so increase 'is to enable the H ouse which h ave to go fur:h e r in the course of reduction. I must say, of all the claims been put in, that which bears on the lower claastseasnoyerrrahtte, well-doing, the health, f and the morals of the . s r u s e t h to n tlem : 4 our consideration. duties as is calculated to that end. I mean, alters: I, l o n w of , w the hen window sta of the te the year, it must window- tex i 3 1 856 000/ be obvious; that ' an * the winds ; e-tax would rb - - conditional repeal of solve the whole surplus which tye have in our possession; and I must confess, objt , ctionable as any Gentleman may think the tax, it woul d be most unjust to the classes who pay other tax es, if the whale surplus was used for such a red uction ; and I will only observe that those obj ections to the tax in a sanitary point of view :might be alto gether removed without a remission of any part of the tex. I, however, don't propose so to deal_ with the tax, because I do intend to give great relief in respect to it, and I am the more inclined to do so, because I believe it presses more hardly on houses in the country than in the town—(Laughter)—and I am not unwilling to that extent to meet the wishes of the Hon. Gentleman op posite.—(Laughter from the Protectionist benches.) The Hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bankes), who is one of the most eloquent supporters of the reduction of the window-tax, and he might fairly be taken as a good exponent of the opinions of country gentlemen on this matter, and therefore I hope it will be considered I am meeting their views on one of their most impor tant grievances. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The question is one not of putting on a new tax, but of retaining one to which the people are well accustomed— (Laughter)—and to which the various interests concerned have accommodated themselves. Be it observed too, that the property upon which this tax is levied, has been relieved during the last few years to a considerable extent, from house property there has been taken off the whole of the inhabited house duty, as well as a great portion of the brick and glass duties. I think, therefore, that independently of other considerations, in this respect the property which would ,be benefited is not one which has the greatest claim to relief. Any gentleman, I think, who will take a circuit in the suburbs of this great metropolis of a few miles, and see the immense number of new houses springing up on every side, will say that this kind of property does not look as if it were particularly in want of relief. But I must admit, at the same time, with a view to sanitary: considerations, that the mode of levying the tax is most objectionable, as it in duces persons to shut up window after window, and confine themselves in an atmosphere most prejudicial to health. The tax as strictly levied is levied upon every open ing, and I hear from thoee gentlemen who have visited the dwellings of the poor, that nothing contributes more to engendering epidemic diseases in large towns than the deprivation of air and light to which the window-tax contributes in some degree; and I think that now we have given to the labouring classes increased labour and means of subsistence we must now improve their lodgings and morals. I propose to alter altogether the mode of levying the assessment, and substitute in its place a tax according to the value of the house, to be applied in the first instance to all new houses. lam aware that during the continuance of the old house-tax many objections were made to the mode of carrying it and more particularly to the system of taking the test of value from the amount of rent paid. It was said that small houses in town were then often forced to pay more than large ones in the country. On the whole, however, I am inclined to think that these objections, however specious, are ectirely without foundation. A large house is not always the test of wealth; but on the contrary, and a man of wealth will always be able to pay a heavy rent for a house, so that after all the fairest test is the amount of rent paid. Other modes of levying the tax have been suggested. I have been urged to levy it not according to the num ber of windows, but according to the cubical contents of the house or the area of the openings in it. But I think that this mode would be liable to the same sanitary objection, and would equally prevent us from en suring to the poorer classes large and airy dwellings. I propose, then, to adopt the amount of rent paid as the value of the house, taking this as a rule with regard to all new houses; but I shall feel it absolutely necessary to make some considerable modifications in applying it to existing houses. I have benefited by the lesson which I acquired last year in attempting to remedy some of the anomalies in the stamp duties, and, however I may desire to remove all anomalies in this tax, I cannot afford to do so fully without sacrificing an amount of revenue which I cannot afford to do at, present. I propose, therefore, to modify the tax as it at present exists. It is impossible to do more without making very great changes, and which I must confess I am not prepared to do. The present tax was levied upon the number of windows, and it has been proposed that the tax should be made - epee value, which would be most difficult, be cause according to the situation of the houses the value would change.—(Hear, hear.) I think, there fore, it would be unwise to adopt such a course as that. The proposal I make will be this. Isbell propose that upon all new houses of the annual value of 201. a year and upwards, that the house-tax should be cal culated at a certain rate, and that all houses now paying window-tax, but of a value not amounting to 20/. a year, shall be exempt a l toge th er —(Hear, hear)—that all houses paying the window tax, if their yearly value amounts to upwards of twenty pounds a year, shall pay to the house-tax, two-thirds of what they now pay to the window-tax.—(Laughter.) Of course Honourable Members will understand that houses under twenty pounds, whatever number of windows they may have, will pay no duty.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the old rate of the house-tax was as follows:—Upon houses be tween 101. and 201. a year, Is. 2d.; upon houses between 201. and 401., 2s. 3d. ; and upon houses of 40/. a year and upwards 2s. 10d. Now I have calculated as near as I can what will be the amount equivalent to two-thirds of the win dow-tax, and I have calculated that it wi • be met by houses above 201. a year paying ls. in the pound, so that the classes of houses I first noticed as paying ls. 21 will have to pay nothing and the last 15.6 d. There are certain houses that have advantages, I allude to dwelling houses where shops are attached. I; propose ,uch, instead of paying Is., shall pay td., and I propose to give the same indulgence to beer houses and farm houses occupied by tenants.—(Hear, hear.' The re , .ult of this, I believe, will be to exempt altogether from taxation upwards of 120,000 houses that now contribute to the window-tax—(Hear, la(-ar,)—and to exempt the • great majority of farm - houses, the result of all which will b 2 a loss to the revenue of 700,0001. It is especially desirable that the number of those houses should be specified, and I find that the whole number of the form-hou.es which will he relieved from the duty is ab )ut 120,000, or to speak in round numbers about one- third of those which are taxed ut the present time.—(Hear, hear.) The imposition of this duty would, therefore, affect no interest but that which was well able to bear it, and would materially aid in furthering the benefit which it was intended should ac crue to the community through the remission of the win low-tax.—(Hear.) The next duty to which I propose to draw the attention of the House is that upon coffee. (Hear, hear.) I found that during the last year the duty upon this article bad fallen off to the amount of 77,0001., and I believe that the origin of that falling off is to be ascribed to the admixture of that article with chicory.—(Hear, hear.) I do believe that coffee is largely intermixed with chicory, but I am by no means convinced that the coffee is thereby deteriorated.— (Hear, her.) lamby no means convinced that the in termixture of the two substances of chicory and coffee is either unplesant to the taste or deleterious to the health. —(Hear, hear.) Last week I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation of gentlemen interested in the chicory trade, and they assured me that such is the fact.—(Hear.) But I have another reason for inquiring into this matter. I cannot say that lam insensible to the attacks on my Ministerial capacity; but I am ac cused of having an interest iu the growth of chicory.— (Hear, and.laughter.) I can assure Hon. Members that, to my knowledge I never grew a blade of chicory in my life, or ever encouraged the growth on the property which anywhere belongs so me. The only place where I ever saw it growing upon, to my knowledge, was on the wayside. I trust, therefore, that I shall be excused from an interested mo tive, and at the same time be pardoned for an allusion to myself.—(Loud cheers.) Ido not myself believe that chicory has any evil influence upon the effect of coffee. I look upon it rather as a benefit, inasmuch :as its use tends to reduee the rates of coffee, nor does it, in my opinion, in any way tend to reduce the value of that wholesome beverage to. the working classes. Some of the coffee adulterated with chicory was put into my hands by certain parties, and I could not in any case see the difference between the adulterated and the real substance. In answer to my inquiries I was told that real coffee eould not here: tailed for less than from ls. to ls. 4d. a pound, but that by the admixture of chicory it could be sold at from 10d. to Is. 4d., and that the best coffee could not, under any circumstances, be sold for less than is. 4d. to ls. Bd. Now I have upon former occasions inclined to the opinion that practical men are the best judges of prac tical matters, and Messrs. Harris and Co., with whom I have been in communication, plainly expressed a similar opinion. lam not about to say that because the admix ture of chicory is not injurious, that I am disinclined to reduce the duty on coffee—(Hear)—for I believe that the doing so would be a great benefit to the working classes. I do not think this is quite fair, and I therefore propose to meet it to some extent by reducing the duty on coffee. —(Hear.) I hold in my hand a return of the quantities of foreign coffee introduced for home consumption in the last five years. The total quantity of colonial coffee introduced was, in Ibs. 1846 ... 23,794,000 1847 27,000,000 1848 ... 30,000,000 1849 ... 29.760,000 1850 ... ... 28,892,000 there being in the course of last year an increase of co lonial coffee to the extent of 5,000,000 of lhi.—(Hear.) The case with foreign coffee was far different. The duty of 6d. on foreign coffee, compared with the duty of 4d. on colonial, gave very different results, the returns being in - lbs. 1846 ... ... 13,000,000 1347 ... ... 10,439,000 11148 ... 6,296.000 1849 ... ... 4,650,000 1850 2,336,000 So that while the importations of colonial coffee had in creased to the extent of 5,000,000 of lbs., the importa tion of foreign coffee had fallen off upwards of 10,000,000 of lbs.—(Hear, hear.) Now I do not believe that the differential duty is of much value to the colonial dealer and I propose there fore, with the view o f d o i ng j ust i ce to the con sumer, and with the view of inducing the producer to give to a customer a better article, to reduce the duty upon both foreign ard colonial coffee, as well as to equalize them.—(Cheers.) At present the duty is 4d. on colonial, and 64. on foreign, and I propose to reduce the duty upon both to an equal duty o'c' 3d. per lb.—(Cheers)—while I also propose to place a uniform duty of 3d, per lb. upon chi cory.—(Hear, hear.) The loss whi c h I est i mate hear.) es ! mean foreign Th will result from this reduction may am oun t to 176,0001. —(Hear.) The next proposal I have to mike to th e House has reference to another article which gave rise to ea a n dealgoodof timber.d isc_ussi ( o u n ear l , ast s great shipbuilders of the country have been open, I think, to an unfair competition with the foreigner, who builds with untaxed timber; and experience has shown us that the present system of taxation . ope rates very seriously against the British builder; for I find that while the number of first-class ships THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, built in this country hare ineremeed, those of a mend class have decreased, and it was with a view to counter act that effect of the duty that I proposed last year a modification of the drawback system, relating to timber.—(Hear, hear.) I now think the best course we can pursue is entirely to do away with this system of drawback, and at the same time to reduce the duty upon the raw material of foreign timber.—(Hear, hear.) I do not know that many thanks are due to me for what I did last session; but some Hon. Gentlemen opposite concurred with me in the opinion I Oren propounded, and I have found since that the alteration has been a great benefit to agri culturists who have been necessitated, by the improved methods of tillage introduced into agriculture, to erect timber buildings on their land.—(Hear, hear.) I propose, therefore, to follow up that change, and to reduce the duty upon foreign timber to one half the present duty.—(Hear, hear.) At present the duty on sawn timber is 205., and upon hewn timber 155., and I propose to reduce it to a uniform duty of 10s. Some parties might wish that I should go further on this point, but I can only say that even if I were prepared to take off the whole duty, I should not feel disposed to go further at present, because I think there is not yet sufficient competition in the foreign market to bring down the price, and there fore the reduction would go entirely into the pockets of the grower instead of the consumer.--(Hear, hear.) I theretore only propose to reduce the duty one-half, which I think will be an advance as well to the British shipbuilder as to the British agriculturist.—(Hear.) I think under no circumstances, therefore, ought the reduction of these duties to be more than one-half the present amount. There is one other item, which I have already mentioned, on which I propose to reduce the duty. I allude to the duty on seeds. In this respect the agricultu rist suffers consicleratle injustice. I believe it to he the only duty which the agriculturist exclusively pays, and which I think he ought not to be required to pay. The amount of duty, no doubt, is not large, but it obviously raises that which is the raw material on which the farmer enaploys his industry. The duty on clover and grass seed alone amounts to 30,000/. out of the 3,500.0001. received under this head. I remember heariug from a great farmer in the north of Englard, when the former reduc tion of the duty took place, that he actually saved in his purchases of clover seed the whole amount of the income tax which he paid. The press nt duty on foreign seeds is 55., on colonial seeds 21. 6d., and I do not believe, in point of feet, that any colonial seeds are imported into the country, and this, therefore, is one of those dif ferential duties which I regret were enforced in 1842. I propose then to get rid of this differential duty alto gether, and to reduce the duty on foreign seeds o one shilling, The amount of loss on that will be 30,000/. I have already stated that the loss by the reduc tion of the duty on timber will be 286,0001. These are the proposals which I intend to make with regard to the reduction of taxation. Honourable Gentlemen will remember that on more than one occasion an appeal has been made to the Government to place on the Consolidated Fund a portion of the burdens on land. Now I don't mein to do this to the very large extent which has been contemplated. My own belief is that it is impolitic, for reasons I have so constantly given, to remove any of those burdens from realized property, and transfer them to the consumer. or to the industrious artizan, and therefore to impede the means of comfortable existence. lam firmly convinced, that if I were anxious to bring about a social revolution in this country, I should above all things urge a system of centralization in these matters, throwing the responsibility of all local ad ministration on the Government, and imposing on the central Government the duty of meeting all these charges. It is quite obvious that parties resident on the spot are better able to check lavish expenditure in regard to local burdens, and have every inducement to keep the expenditure to the lowest point; but our recent experience in Ireland has shown how great a disposition there is to swell expen diture when the parties superintending it have not to pay the money out of their own pockets. I believe, how ever, that if all responsibility were brought to bear on the Government in times of popular excitement, a degree of unpopularity would attach to the Government which no Government could withstand, and the worst of revolutions might be brought about by local distur bances which, under the present state of local govern ment, would be arranged by the local magistrates and the local committees.—(Hear, hear.) I believe the safety of the country depends on the number of persons who take a share in the local administration, the magis trates, juries, boards of guardians, and local commis sioners for lighting and paving the different Owns.— (Hear, hear.) Therefore I should be sorry to see a disposition to displace the local administration, and vast it in a central government.—(Loud cheers.) I think, however, on looking over and considering this subject, there is one charge, a portion of which might be put on the Consolidated Fund, without incurring any of the dangers I have mentioned. It is a charge which has been recommended for favourable consideration by more than one Committee on the subject, and it is clearly a charge of an exceptionable character, that is a por tion of the charge of the expense for maintain ing pauper lunatics. Tho Lords' Committee on the burdens of land recommended that the whole charge should be placed on the Consolidated Fund. Ido not propose to go this entire length, because I should be doing away with the superintending funcdons of a very useful body, the visiting justices, but only to take a portion of the charge, so as not entirely to oust these gentlemen. Hon. Gentlemen are aware that in many counties large lunatic asylums have been built at a considerable expense, and these I think are entitled to far more c:nisideratiou than those in which no such provision has been made. The poraen of exs parse which I propose to take upon the public fund is such as will leave the expense of maintaining a pauper iunatic to the ordinary level of that of a common pauper, and I think that a very jtht reason fo' taking this charge may be found in the fact that no care of the rate-payers could have avoided this expense. I have tot been able to ascertain exactly what the amount of this charge will be, but I take it in round numbers to be 150,0001. An Hoer. MEMDER inquired if the Right Hon. Gen tleman included the whole of the United Kingdom, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Yes, England, Scotland, and Ireland. These, then, are the proposals which I shall in due time submit to the House. The reduction of duties, and the consequent relief afforded to the country, will be as follows:—On sugar, 330,000/.; on windows, 760,000/.; on coffee, 176,0001.; on timber, 286.0001.; and on agricultural seeds, 30,000/.; making altogether a gain to the public amounting to 1,522,0001. Ido not, however, estimate the loss to the revenue at anything like that sum. I have already stated that I conceive the Customs revenue will make up in other items the whole of the lose upon sugar. The loss in regard to the window duty will, of course, be a total loss to the full amount of 700,000/., that being the difference between the amount of the window duty I repeal and the amount of the house duty which I substitute. I believe the loss upon the re duction of duty on coffee and timber together will not exceed 400,0001., and the loss upon agricultural seeds I calculate at 30,0001., making altogether a loss to the revenue of 1,130,000/. Bit, in addition to this, is the charge which I propose to lay upon the revenue by transferring from a local rate to the consolidated fund the charge for lunatic asylums, amounting to 150,000/. This will consequently cause an increase of loss to the revenue ; making it altogether amount to 1,280,0001. Deducting this from the surplus of 1,892,0001., it leaves for future years a net surplus of 612,000/. But it will be remembered that half a year's amount of window duty will have to be received in the course of the next year, which, amounting to 350,0001., will make the surplus for the next year amount to 962,000/.; but the surplus for future years, should tho House consent to a renewal of the income-tax, will be 612,000/. Ido not think it can be fairly objected to me that I have endeavoured to make too large a surplus. These, then, as I have already said, are the proposals which I shall make to the House, in the event of their acceding to a renewal of the income-tax. Of course, knowing as I do how much larger a surplus has been an ticipated, I cannot but expect that some disappointment will be felt by parties in this House, at finding that the amount of reduction that can be afforded is less than they expected. Knowing, also, the views which are en tertained by many gentlemen opposite on the subject of an extensive transfer of local rates to a charge upon the general revenue, I cannot but expect that they should be disappointed in finding that I do not consider it just to the community at large to transfer a larger portion of local rates as a charge upon the general funds of the country. My own firm belief is that these local rates are not any charge upon the occupiers of the soil. I believe that they fall upon the owners of the land. I do not think it is consistent either with good policy as regards our institutions, or with justice to the other classes of the community, to relieve the land from those local burdens to a greater extent than that which I have now done. I cannot feel myself open to the reproach of having, in dealing with the general taxation of the country, been regardless of the claims of gentlemen connected with the possession of land. The lion. Member for Buckinghamshire told us the other night that the stamp duties were a charge on land which he considered justly to a certain extent to be a set-off against the probate and legacy duty. Now, the house will remember that I last year proposed a reduction of the stamp duties upon deeds, the far larger portion of the benefit of which would fall to the share of the owners of land, to the extent of 500,000/. Last year also I proposed a remissio n of duty on bricks, and I now propose a reduction of duty on timber, which is much used by that class of pers o ns in the construction of th e i r barns. Indeed, lam of opinion that there is no d u ty t h e reduction of which will re liev e the occupiers of lead t o so great an extent as the reduction of duty on timber. I am most anxious to assist them in the improvement of their property, and in the improvement of their iedus trial operations, by the removal of every species of tax, so far as I can do so in justice to the other classes of the community.—(Cheers.) I know that there are some gentlemen who entertain an anxious desire that the loan granted for drainage last year should be extended to farm buildings. I would remind gentlemen what took place last year on this subject. While stating my own i e . diridual objections, I said that, as far as the public revenue was concerned, I had no objection to the loan being extended to farm buildings. Words to that effect were actually introduced into the Bill, in order that the subject might be discussed; it was discussed, and more especially by gentlemen representing the counties. I remember the Hon. Member for Somersetshire saying that I had behaved most fairly in giving a full oppor tunity to consider the subject. But what was the re sult? Of the county Members of England and Scotland who divided on the measure there were 36 against the loan being extended to farm buildings, and 12 for it. But, as I have said before, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, there can be no objection to the proposal; al. though there were last session three to one of the county Members who thought it a boon which it was not ad visable td accept. Individually I have no hesitation in seeing I eineur in that opinioe; bet 1-. ° it bo se. 'esteo:l that the objection to its adoption did nut come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but from the country gen tlemen. I can only say that if they should have changed their mind, and wish that the extension of the loan should be made, there are ample funds still loft, the whole amount granted last year not having been taken up either in England or Scotland. Therefore, if it should be the opinion of the majority that the money should be reap plied, it is still open to them to have it so applied. I shall oppose no objection on the part of the Exchequer, al though I hope, as a country gentleman, I may be at liberty to state my opinion upon the subject. I can only say upon this, as upon any other proposal which may be made with a view to mitigate the effect of any measure of legislation which may be considered to ope rate oppressively on the agricultural interest, I shall be perfectly ready (I assure Hon. Gentlemen I say it with all sincerity) to discuss those proposals with the utmost frankness, and with the utmost disposition to consider them in all their bearings, with a view, if they should be well founded, to their practical adoption; but I cannot think that there is any portion of our taxation which presses unfairly upon that interest. I consider the well being of that class connected with the proprietorship and cultivation of the land to be inseparably mixed up with the well-being of the community at large; and therefore, that that system of taxation which is, upon the whole, best for the entire community, is best for them as part and parcel of that community, and whose interests are indissolubly joined with it. I don't know that there is any other point on which it is necessary for me to trouble the House at present. The proposal I shall put into your hands, Sir, will be simply for a renewal of the income tax and of the stamp-duties in Ireland. If a reduction of any portion of those duties should be proposed, the more convenient time for discussing such a proposal will be in some one of the stages of the Bill itself. If it be the wish of Hon. Gentlemen that I should not this even ing take a vote.—(Hear, hear)—l am perfectly prepared not to ask them for it.—(Hear, hear.) I only wish to point out to them that by agreeing to a resolution this night they are not precluded from making any general proposition with respect to the renewal of the income tax at a future stage of the measure. My proposal is that the tax he renewed for a period similar t i that for which it was renewed on a former occasion—namely, three years. I will only further observe, that it is desir able on all sides no longer delay than what is necessary for a full discussion of the question should be allowed to take place, whatever opinioes Hon. Gentlemen may entertain respecting it.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved the following resolution:— " That, towards raising the supply granted to her Me jesty, the respective duties iu Gres;. Brifaiu oa profits arising from property, professions, trade., and offices, and the stamp-duties in Ireland, granted by two Acts passed in the sixth year of her present Majesty, and which have been continued and amended by several sub• sequent Acts, shall be further continued fur a time to be limited." Mr. [TERRIES said, that of all the several topics em braced in the elaborate and long speech of his Right Hon. Friend, the most important one was the proposal for a re newal of the income 'tax. He rose for the purpose of claim ing from , the Government that which they appeared prepared to concede, namely, ample time before the House should be called upon to vote upon that great question. He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not resume the discussion at an earlier period than Friday next.—(Hear, hear, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to accede to that suggestion. In making it, be (Mr. Herries) had not the most distant inten tion of offering anything like an obstructive opposition to the measure, or of interposing any unnecessary delay. Con sidering the circumstances under which they were called upon to renew the income-tax, they ought, after having ma turely considered it, to enter upon the discussion as rapidly as possible. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that there were peculiar circumstances in the present condition of the country, and in the present posture of public affairs, which rendered his main proposition more difficult than at any former period in which it was brought before Parlia ment. As time would be allowed them for considering the question, he would not, in the interval, express any opinion as to what would be wise, prudent, and politic, in this important crisis of public affairs, and the decision which should be come to on this question. All he would say was, that there could be no desire on the part of any gentleman to give any other vote upon this great question-- for great it certainly was--than that which would be condu cive to, and in accordance with, the welfare of the whole community. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was quite sure the Right Ho nourable Gentleman would not oppose any obstruction or delay in the House coming t o a d ec i s i on upon t h e question. He (Lord John Russell), thought the proposal for going into Committee on Friday next with a view to the discussion and decision of the question was a perfectly fair one.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME thought it right that time should be given to consider, not only the statements which the Right Hon. Gentleman had made, but his omissions also. He regretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman was not prepared to make any reductions in the establishment of the country, the estimates .he had given them being within 150,004. of those of lint year. They were told that because two million of men had, appeared in arms somewhere that thi s country could make' no reductions in the army. He must confess that he was disappointed, because after what was stated by the Noble Lord last year with regard to his colonial policy, and of th 6 determination of Government to withdraw the troops and to make the colonists pay for their own troops, he thought_ that the Right Hon. Gentleman would have found there was a large field for reduction, and that we might have expected in the course of this year the fruits of that reduction. He knew no reason why the Canadians should not govern themselves. The clergy reserves had been given up to them. He thought it be came a question whether we were to keep up these establishments there. They were quite unnecessary, and he was informed that if we gave them up the Canadians would not maintain them for one day. The question was whether the country was satisfied with the expenditure amounting to 54,000,0001., which, including the costs of collection, was the amount, and whether the_ House would take any steps to effect a reduction in our civil and military establishments. It seemed to him that there was great delicacy in dealing with the civil establishment. He should have expected that the Government would hare come forward, and that from the Crown downwards we should have been relieved, with a view either of dispensing with the income-tax altogether, or of repealing other taxes. He confessed he would rather see removed the soapetax ' the paper-tax, and all oth er t axes which press upon trade, than the income-tax. But if they were to be continued, and the income-tax too, then it be came a question whether they should not dispense with the income-tax. The Right Hon. Gentleman had misunder stood an observation that fell from him (Mr. Hume) when this tax was proposed three years ago. The proposition was made that it should be continued for three years, and he moved a substantive motion that it should be continued for only one year, in order to afford time for an inquiry into the whole incidents of our taxation, and with a view of effecting such improvements as might be made in the mode of collection. With regard to the income - tax, there were great objections to the prsent mode of levying it. He always regarded it almost as a robbery to charge the same per tentage upon terminable incomes as upon incomes which were not ter minable. He had no hesitation in saying that it was impossible to go on with the present amount of taxation, and he could not believe that 'the agriculturist would allow these large and expensive establishments to be maintained as at present. A Committee up stairs during the last three years had gone through the estimates of the navy, army, and ordnance, to an extent of which the Minister could avail himself, and he had expected that Government would have been prepared to show reductions in all those esta blishments, and also in the civil administration. But not a word had been said about it. Everything was to re main the same, and there was to be no alteration either in the home or the colonial establishments. He thought the country would be disappointed, and he was disap pointed. because he knew that Government had the in formation before them on which to found the reductions. With regard to the window-tax, it was quite right to re move it, but he must say, as to the house-tax, that while they had been spending years in simplifying taxation, the proposed house-tax was of a most complex nature, and he thought it would be a year before the regulations could be brought into operation. He trusted that the House would repeal the window -tax and not impose the house-tax. With regard to coffee, he thought the reduction proposed was a wise one, and that it was better to have one duty on both foreign and colonial. He also thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman was acting wisely in refusing to put an excise duty upon chicory. As to timber, the only objection he had was that the reduction did no go far enough. At the same time there was some truth in what the Right Hon. Gentleman said, that it required time for them to get the supplies. He believed, as was stated some years ago, that if our ship-builders had fair play we should become as pre-eminent for our manufacture of ships as we were now for any other article, as we had peculiar facilities for ship building. It was also proposed to reduce the duty on agri cultural seeds. He had only been surprised that country gentlemen had been so long silent on that head. They constituted a raw material, but a most important material ; and in 1842 he expressed his regret that the duty on seeds was not taken off. He hoped that country gentlemen would see the importance of having seeds at as low a price as possible. With regard to pauper lunatics he could not see why they should become a charge upon the public any more than other local charges. The result of the measures taken by Sir Robert Peel and Lord Althorp in relieving counties of the expense of prosecutions, had shown the want of wisdom of such measures. That which cost 11. before, now cost 4L or 511 The Government had no check or control; it rested with the county magistrates, and not with them entirely, as from the evidence of the chief constable of Stockport it ap peared that there were parties interested in every county in carrying on prosecutions. He entirely disagreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman as to applying any portion of the sur plus to pay off the debt. The paper manufacture was one which might give employment to thousands, and might be. come as extensive a manufacture as any in the country, not only for our own use but for foreign nipple-. With the means and materials whichthis country possess, it might become as prosperous a manufacture as any we had. The em ployment it would give, and the mischiefs it would prevent, were incalculable. These manufactories ex isted in remote parts of the country, chiefly where there was a convenient and abundant supply of water; in each of these localities a little town had grown up around the manufactory; and seeing that there was a decrease, instead of an increase, in this manufacture, great care should be taken to avoid throwing the population, so stilled into existence, upon the poor-rates. It would be much better to repeal the duty on paper, than to apply so much of the surplus in buying up stock, an operation which was sure to be attended by a loss, as on a former occasion, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had funded at 86 per cent., and had purchased again at 96, thus causing a loss of about 250,0001.—(Hear, hear.) This was no time for throwing away 230,000 e. in such an operation. He was as great an advocate as any one for maintaining the public faith ; but he would not apply a surplus in paying off the debt when it might be devoted to a better purpose. How much better would it have been to have repealed the duty on soap last year than to have bought up 1,200,0001. of Three per Cents. —(Hear, hear.) Wherever fiscal regulations interfered with commerce and industry, the first object should be to i relieve them. By every means let the soap and paper du ties be abolished, not only for the relief which would be thus afforded to our people at home, though that would , be great in every point of view, but as a means of enabling this country to become an exporter of soap, instead of being dependent on other countries for its own supply. The Go-. vernment would, of course, buy stock at the market p r i ce; but when a sur pl us a ro se, the first question was, how it could best be applied? Instead of applying it to paying off • two millions and a half, or 2,300,0001. of the debt, as he un derstood the Right Hon. Baronet to say, let it be applied to the removal of taxes pressing on industry. This was not applying the principle laid down by Sir Robert Peel in 1643 nor wee it carrying the priuciplee of f ree trade. FEBRUARY lB, 1851. There w ire eureeeens article., ei yet free. It was said that glass was duty free, but there were kinds which still paid a duty of 50 or 60 per cent. Why not remove all the duties of a protective nature? Why, for instance, should the import duty on gloves be conti nued, when the price of the article in this country was higher than ever, and a greater quantity was exported f Why not let the consumer have the full benefit of that competition which we had declared should be the principle of our fiscal system, be repealing all the taxes on the prod ucts o f i n d ustry? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— , e Oe id the Hon. Gentleman go the length of repealing all taxes ? Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Baronet greatly misre presented him. He did not say let all taxes be repealed: that was the argument of fools out of doors.—(Hear, hear.) But he contended that the application of the surplus ought to be so regulated as to remove the existing impediments to the employment of industry and the investment of capital, for the beneficial employment of which every outlet was needed. To buy up any portion of the debt, with these ob jectionable taxes existing, would be extremely imprudent. The Right Hon. Baronet had alluded to the increase of an nuities—a favourable symptom ; and he did not believe that there would be any fear or risk as to the public faith being kept, so long as they took care not to strain the spring of industry until it broke. He entirely concurred in one sentence of the Right Hon. Baronet, which had also been expressed by the Noble Lord (Russell) on a former evening —that the security and peace of the country depended mainly on the number of people who took a share or were interested in the Govern ment of the country. Let the occupants of the Treasury bench be consistent, and bear that sentiment in mind when the question of the franchise came on for discussion.—(Hear.) The same principle applied to taxation. It was their duty to lessen by every means in their power the burdens of the community, in order that they might be comfortable; and in the train of comfort would follow peace and content. But he did not think such a state of things would be realised un der the present system. Viscount DUNCAN concurred with most of the Hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him in thinking that, until the question of the property-tax was settled, it would be almost premature to make any observations on the other parts of the Right Hon. Baronet's scheme. As to the property-tax, Ile ! thought Sir Robert Peel was fully justified in introducing it along with the changes which he made in our fiscal system, inasmuch as he removed the taxes from the f eel of the people. So far the experiment had been perfectly suc cessful ; and it was mainly owing to that policy that the condition of this country was now so different from that of other c tuntries ; for it was the only country in Europe which hal any surplus to dispose of: He hoped that if the property. tax was re-imposed, it would be done on the same principle, on which it had been originally imposed, and that corresponding reductions would be made in all taxes which affected the comforts of the working classes. He had a motion on the book for Thursday next for the repeal of the window -tax; but, as he understood from his Right Hon. Friend that the arguments he had used on a former occasion had at. length convinced the Government of the ne cessity of repealing that tax, he trusted there was now no diffe rence of opinion between them. He regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman, in proposing the repeal of this tax, seemed to cast " a lingering look behind," for he was probably the only person in the country who would have ventured upon the assertion, at the present day, that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the window-tax. The Right Hon. Gentlsman said, "Look how much house-property has been relieved in the last few years by the repeal of the duties on glass and on bricks" But what relief was this to houses already built? It only applied to those to Le built. Another argument had been used that the win dow-tax ought to be kept on because people were accus tomed to it. This reminded him of the old story about skinning the eels. He feared those arguments would not be very satisfactory or consolatory to those who looked for a total repeal of the window-tax. He thought he was perfectly justified in proposing its repeal last year, though he was told that faith could not then be kept with the public creditor. He feared the proposition of a house tax would cause considerable disappointment to many; he wished the substitution of that tax could have been avoided. Sir JOHN TYRELL thought the Noble Lord who had just sat down ought to be satisfied with the victory he had gained over the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the agricultural interests, he thought it would have been much better had the Government stoutly denied their distress in the Queen's Speech ; for the measures now shadowed forth were not at all of a description to administer any substan tial relief to those classes whom they admitted to be dis tressed. He congratulated the Right Hon. Baronet on hav ing made one admission, great in principle, though small in amount—that of having recourse, on certain occasions, to the Consolidated Fund. He proposed to administer some relief in respect to pauper lunatics, with the view of encourag ing parishes in unions to send their pauper lunatics to the county asylums. If the agricultural portion of the country was really in a state of distress, it might be doubted whether it was advisable to act on such a principle; for medical men admitted that the partition between pauperism and lunacy was so very thin that in some cases it was almost transpa rent; and there might be a danger of paupers being hurried off to the lunatic asylums, in consequence of the Right H on . Gentleman's propos a l. H e agreed in the importance of the poor having a wholesome beverage to drink, which was in many cases almost a necessary of life. The adulteration of coffee was carried on to an enormous extent; and though with a portion of chicory, it might make a cheaper and better beverage than the lower kinds of coffee itself, yet chicory was so much mixed with parsnips, carrots, mangold wurtzel, and other substances, that it was impossible to obtain it pure. In many cases it might be difficult to say whether chicory was adulterated with mangold wurtzel, or mangold wurtzel with chicory; and if a penalty were imposed on these adulterations, it would impose a great deal of trouble. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he was quite sure the Chan cellor's statement would disappoint 'the country as well as that House. If the House wished to force reductions on the Govern ment, they must begin with our expensive establishments. After Committees had been sitting for three sessions on the army and navy estimates, the Government ought to have been prepared to carry out some very extensive reductions. But it appeared that, whenever the finances were in a flou rishiug condition, there was always an extravagant expen diture. The expenditure of 1845 had been 2,174,0001. less than the expenditure of this year; and what were the cir cumstances of the country to justify such an increase ? iAt home., tranquillity, peace, and contentment reigned to a much greater extent than was the case in 1845; the colo nies were in a state of quiet —there were some misunder standisngs, but nothing to warrant such an expenditure as this; and foreign nations had quite enouerh to do to ma nage their own affairs: they had neither:the means nor the disposition to interfere with us or any of their neighbours. Let the Right Hon. Baronet state to the House the necessity for the increased expenditure this year over the periods he had n sailed. The expenditure of the army and navy was a reaffirm more than in 1845. What was there to require or justify. that? Sir Robert Peel had carried on the Govern ment peaceably with the smaller expenditure, and why could •not the present Government carry it on as cheaply as he ha d dane? They had certainly never carried it on more efficiently. Was it through want of disposition or of ability? As th e question would again come before the House, he was not d lisposed to take up the time of Hon. Gentlemen at the pinesent moment.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the windo w -tax abolition and the substitution of a house-tax on the principle proposed by the Chancellor of the Exche quer hoe should say he considered it most objectionable, as it removed none of the complaints urged against the inequality of taseing the houses of the poor from 25 to 30 per cent. on the rental, whilst those of the wealthy . were only taxed 2 or 2% les r cent.—(Hear, hear.) Then, the income-tax, also, was an impost that the community expected would be placed on a &ifferent principle from that which previously regue lated it.—(Hear, hear.) But, as further opportunity would occur for the consideration of all these topics, he did not deem Le necessary to refer to them more particularly on the present. occasion. Ald. , erman SIDNEY did not wish to anticipate the debate, but could not avoid making a few observations for the atten tion o E the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The scheme pro posed :for the reduction of the window duty, by the levy of a house tax yielding two-thirds of the present window duty, he cm isidered a great injustice to houses lately erected and containing a larger number of windows. lie could bring to the re collection of the Right Hon. Gentleman the fact that some new houses with fifty or seventy windows, assessed at 50/. or . 70/. per annum, would under the altered state of things. have to pay some Is. in the pound, or 21. 10s. or 31. 10s. ini the year; whilst the old houses, under the former system of equal value, would have to pay 13/. and 201. per annurti.—(Hear.) As to the incotnestax, he would not then touch on that. He remembered when the Noble Lord at the head ref the Government re -introduced the tax in 1848, he propoieed it on the ground of its being merely a temporary tax. In 1842 Sir Robert Peel stated to the House that if the tax were to be a permanent one he would consider it the duty of the Government to inves tigate bow far it pressed on the different •classes who paid it. —(Hear.) He therefore trusted the House would offer tie e most determined opposition to the income-tax, un less Ministers were prepared to make it more just and equal in its c° Aeration.—.(Bear.) He would never consent to the renewral of a tax which exacted in the same proportion froth talent, salary, and daily toil, as from realized property. — (Hear, hear.) Me should differ with the Hon. Member for Montrose, and assert that Government was not to blame for having appropriated a certain portion of their surplus revenue to the payment of the national debt, as, in his opinion, they were bound to leave as little as possible of such a legacy to their successors. —(A laugh.) In conclusion, he hoped that some important Member on one side of the House or the other would insist that the income-tax, when renewed, should be renewed on fairer principles.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HODGES thought that as the brick duties came under favou resble consideration last year, the hop duty should not have been overlooked on the present occasion. For the last thirty- years there had been great complaints amongst the hop growers, and these complaints had not lessened, but ag gravated; and from what he knew of the condition of the farmers in the hop counties, he could undertake to my that Government would be unable to collect the hop duty in the present year. Mr. SLANEY tendered his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remission of several taxes, but more par ticularly for the remission of the window-tax, which would be the greatest boon to the dwellers in crowded courts and alleys,. who felt severely, as he could testify, the privation of light. He rejoiced at those reductions, because he felt that in proportion as the working classes were enabled to con sume the necessaries and smaller luxuries of life, the land lords -would be better off also, and that in proportion as the restraints on the springs of industry were relaxed, so would the great mails of the people be elevated in the social scale, and itaprove in all the elements of real prosperity. His Right Hon. Friend had stated his willingness to give every a id in his power to the suffering agricultural classes, and to afford to them for other improvements that assistance which had been found so useful in the county he (Mr. olaney) re presented tor the purposes of drainage ; but why would not his Right Hon. Friend allow private individuals to lend money on the some terms, instead of requiriug the parties to come to the Exchequer for the loans? Nothing could be more useful than such a plan ; at present money could not be obtained on mortgage at less than 4 per cent., although Ex , chew] er-bills produced only 2 per cent. ; and the reason of the foemer was the complexity of the transactions, and the layss preventin g th e landed interest from gett i ng f a i r p l ay particular. He hoped, however, to see the time when that difficulty would be removed. Mr. FREWEN joined with his Hon. Friend the Member for West Kent in expressing his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not announced his intention of midge , ling the duty on hops. He had mentioned to the Right Hon- Gentleman a short time before, on going up with a de putationbrought mainly m ont n h l e y subject, the state into which his county was in consequence of that oppressive tax. In a neighbouring parish to his own t,OOO acres out of about 3,0110 were thrown on the hands of the landlords, a large part of which belonged to a Noble Lord on the other side of the House, who had them on hie hands since 1848. In fact at that end of Sussex thousands of acres had been thrown up, and there would be more than double the quantity at Mi chaelmas next. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon stated the other night that he had not more than 300/. arrears owing to him for rent; but he (Mr. Frewen) could mention some landlords who had thousands owing to them for such arrears. In the eastern division of Sussex the hop duty amounted to more than 10 0,000/. In 1848 it was more - than 147,000/. ; last year it was 116,000/. ; and, now that the protecting duty wa d loweou t o one fourth of ; „ ss, , ' jss. s" Chancellor of the Exchequer for a mitigation of t hi s most oppressive tax. The quantity of hop plantat ion,, ~ had been greatly red uce d o f late years. In 18 ' the quantity was 51,000 acres, and the old duty paid wit! 242,0001. In 1822 the quantity was 43,766 acres, and the old duty was little more than 200,000/. In consequence of the pressure in that year Lo r d Li v erpool's Government sent down orders that the Excise o ffi ce r s were not to collect the fluty. Now in the lag year there had been great -meetings on the subject, deputations to the Government and petitions presented to Parliament, but the duty had been enforced although the pressure w a s grea t er th an at the former period. He thought they had a strong claim to have the duty lowered _ to one. half its present am ou nt, for otherwise it would_ b e utterly impossible to conti nue th e t ra de. The Right non_ Gentleman would fi n d it t o t a ll y i m p oss ible to collect the tax for the last year, and great distress anl ruin must be the con sequence if it were enterced. Many of the old political sup porters of the Government had expressed their wish that they might not long continue in office.—(A laugh.) (Alderma _ Mr. COWAN said he rose p r i nc ipally in consequence oaf the observati on o f th e H on. M em b er op p os ite Sidney) as to the inj u sti ce o f th e i nco me-tax as it at preset existed. He need only re f er t o w h a t t oo k place three ye a ago, when Hon. M e mbers expressed themselves in strong terms as to that injustice, and the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had exposed it in the most manly manner. He did not wonder at the coalPi.s in • against the tax from it s i nequa lity, an d the facilitie s „. l ! offered for fraud and evasi o n. H e h e ld in his hand a twr r n of assessment which h a d b een sen t t o one o f his constitue nf —it went through the Po s t-office without an envelope, _ope at the ends, so that with ou t any great breach of confident: any clerk or messeng e r o f th e office might ascertain the amount at which any person in the city of Edinburgh ,77 assessed, for all the noti ces were i ssue d at the same trnx re, ra t He found that in th e y ear 1848 147,659 persons we sessed under Schedule D f or i ncome -t ax , o f w hom 34, 270 ,1, incomes under 1501. a year; and yet from them b ed collected 73,000/. He could not but call that money ill'_ gotten gain. He als o th oug ht t h a t coac h manufacturer s ' who had been such great su ff erers f rom th e progress of r ail,o ways of late years, and a l so the paper ma nufacturers , entitled to relief at the h an d s o f the Ch ance llor of the were chequer. As to the latte r t ax , hi s conv i c tion was that s' produced no substantial gain to the country. Sir B. HALL said that w h en th e N o bl e Lord, three y ear° ago, spoke of the income-t ax an d t h e extens i o n of that tax tO Ireland, he certainly gave the House to understand that 107 the tax was again proposed it should be extended to Ireland' He thought it right, therefore, a t th a t ear ly part of the cussion, to give notice that whenever the opportunity arr.'s he should take the s e n se o f th e H ouse as to t h e e xtension; the income-tax to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) There was ° question he wished to p u t to his Right Hon. Friend; but 0 f first he would tell him that with regard to the impnert i r t be the house -tax, it wa s hi s i ntent i on to ta k e t h e sense o House on that proposition.—(Hear, hear.) But it was, e tremely desirable to know what strength they were likeelY,is have in support of such a proposition, and therefore, h_w h y they earns to the discus ion, he wished to ask the il o ti Hon. Gentleman whether he intended that his propositions, a house-tax should be confined exclusively to Great 1 3 or w or should be extended also to Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) . the Mr. ALCOCK, aft er express i ng hi s sat i s faction at to announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer esei, taking the duty off c l over - see d , sa id h e was an xious to o f of plain the reason why h e vote d t h e other n i g h t in W e " 00 the motion of the Hun. Member for Buckin did so, not from any view to a return to protection , " rw , ut because he was one of those who wished to force the Gov e ttee ment to give them a full and complete system ° 40 . trade. He wanted to extort from them free trade in the _4 1 . 0 portant article of barley. The House was hardly s w ie d that one-ninth part of all the cultivated land was (Ol io by barley. When the Hon. Member for B u cking a last year nroposed to transfer to the Consolidated Fatless part of the charge for the poor-laws, the Right Hon. G t man the Secretary for the Home Department and S ir a do Peel proved, that even if the Hon. Gentleman had mid. good his case, it would not have made more than 2 d si `j es ed, an acre difference. But the tax on barley, he 13 ' were amounted to 4/. or 5/. an acre. Some Hon. Gentlemen th e gharnshire. disposed to say it was of no consequence; but wer e it he aware that if a man wanted to convert barley into re s e The got only five quarters of malt for twelve of barley ( sn ot farmers of England had not combined together for the r'r re s of that tax, as the commercial classes had done for t he ss to peal of other duties, and therefore they had failed to col!i nt, i f that House with any effect or power whatsoever. s od they did combine, as they had done in South NO t '''btain elected their own repre sen t a ti ves, t h ey could not fail t o ° ,dife justice, although, app aren tl y, it might be a matter of farence to that House. s tleo l Sir W. JOLLIFFE was glad that the Hon. u' e- iff inal" who had just spoken was at last convinced that the se - _,i o at tural interest had reason for discontent. The House 'V e ra depend upon it that in many parts of the countrysutreb eytbsaotoitt, suffering most severe privations, and he was would be a satisfaction to them to feel that they Ill s degree of sympathy from their Members; but, w u .„ l " s atbl felt that, they must feel also that they had no 5 7`",, ss r eer• from the Government or the Chancellor of the Ec us- '' eat —(Hear, hear.) Never had he listened to any 8 . 1 g oo' with more pain than he h a d li stened to the fi nenc"-h-ear.) meat of the Right Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear' night What was the country t o expect ? Only t h e other . 0 g od the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over g bt . o o, her Majesty's Government in the Speech from the ' did not distinctly referred to agricultural distress. But he R ioting see how the tenant-farmer could be benefited 0n e ,.., ,1002 0 ' by the present proposition of the Right Hon. Gen othe r o ther If houses above 201. were to be taxed some one % too of the est Rightpay that Icon. tax. Ge ntlßemutanl.et t H h e em m c i o g n h c t ei h v e e n t e hi t i over er t i a : esu d_lr i the north of England by t a ki ng o ff the duty on cif) po ts 0 but he was doing infinite injury to the scathe rand grey'. England, for many tenant s i n t h e south of Eag'— em plor clover-seed, and it was o ne o f th e i r most pro fitable r,g ad ments. If it were n o t b ene fi c i a l to the tenant-101d i t to from its being an uncert a i n crop h e did not re coturbe f gre o s his tenantry, still t o th e l a b ourer i t was a so urce 'S s f the advantage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talketVd great deal be did l a st y ear f or the land, but the l a nd b„ Soll• perienced very:little pr ac ti ca l b ene fi t f rom th e Rig" - du ty Gentleman's boasted boons. As to the reduction of the „,es on bricks, he did not believe that a single tenant-D7p throughout the country had benefited by that reduct ion the extent of one shilling.—(Hear, hear.) If, with 5 0 , 40 . an aggregate surplus in two years, the present s. l : r i o g cellor of the Exchequer could do no more for the sn'w bo d. agricultural interest, that interest would rather have a get from the Hon. Member for Montrose. „ m odal Lord D. TUART said that a m os t importen . ,`' by had been put to the Chancellor of th e Excbeq7nsse 1111 ' Honourable Colleague ; he Loped th at i t would not r ANCELLOR of Hon. XCHEQII' ~ had not an . answered. at the moment simply because, as usual upon these swered the question of the Member for occasio n'is—wer ether' he had proposed to answer all such questions tog tbs t What he had stated, very distinctly as he thought, W a t a o t ee in he proposed to re d uce the present duty Pa id by o°ll Great Brit a i n ; h e did not mean to i m p o se any new to man' her for Edi n b urg h , that some of hi s constituents , Ireland. Wi t h re f erence to the complaint of the no' se in , whO node comes under Schedule D were below 150/., had b ee s p sr ielag to pay income-tax, the explanation was that , is " w sich means from other sources not set forth in Schedule vi b e et raised their incomes above 1501., they had, of u _nce to_arse, assessed upon that aggre ate income. With refere e t he the tenant-farmers, he had always maintained 0100 benefit to them must be given, generally speaking , n o iclte their landlords. If the result of reducing the duty 013 , 0 gigs and on timber, had been to enable the landlords to 008 ., their tenants better buildings in which to carry on th. ll the rations, this was certainly a material good done _!.1 00 of tenant-farmers. He had never spoken of the reduc"'m the brick duty as a direct boon to the tenant-farmeri s oy o' the proposed reducti on o f th e see d duty, he was e' e te aoat opinion that the gene r al b o dy o f agr i cultur i s t s tbro ; bie st the country would be benefited by a measure cheapened their raw material. C eara, Mr. NE WDEGATE w i s hed to k now w hether the ese is cellor of the Exchequer had this year, as in forrne r _ s T u the formed an estimate of the amount to be derived u - co nee corn-duty? (Hear, hear.) In 1349 his estimate of r.fi, from that source was .50,000/. at a duty of Is., and he he anticipated the same amount from the same soul". esti duty so anticipated was small in amount, but t r s. per because, at a fixed rate 01 1„ i to the agriculturists a distinct insight '" r tati° l2 g a v v a e l valuable , e, Government anticipation of what was to be the ilsan 4 9 the q m u a a t r e t er, was it of corn in the ensuing year.—(Hear, hear.) In I ° an tler Right Hon. Gentleman, instead of the 250,000/. ,11e OOP pated, received 617,815/. from the corn receive and 8 170 10 instead of his anticipated 250,000/ be 4, ; h old an excess of 70 per cent. upon his estimate. I le villt 6 like very much to hear from the Right Hon. Gentleman ye ar ; be estimated the corn duty would realize in the ens u s b i twoul d for if it, was to be, say, half a million sterling, tu gil t ' be an important feature in the Budget, and Wow o th e very important information to the landed interest as n 'i st ir extent of foreign competition which the Government posed they would have to encounter. As to tb_e g the of France, which was put forward by way of Co ' analogy agriculturists in their distress, there was 11 °., 8° ,1 a n t d. between the cas e o f France and the case of l'Pe" - trY; and gland was an importing, France an exporting c o l l , q uarters the 700,000 quarters which in 1849, and I, o ° ° ';' o isely reg ti ; which in 1850, France exported to En lan d ' P-e P rice f lated, by their price in th En ' g km, the o bje glish mar d roper to corn throughout France. This Budget prosente e House - features. The Right Hon. Gentleman asked th ._ht per, continue the income-tax, that under its cover he b u g m to 1 " 2/ 1 petuate free trade to commerce; and he as ked the Col or ° tine the duties on malt and on hops, that, under sicris these, he might perpetuate the refusal of free-trade fraett culture.—(Hear.) He regarded this Budget as n ‘b t; whic t i ! ignoring of her Majesty's Speech, and of the sYn I P aL ' for - uc for on the occasion of the motion of the Hon. Mem ber lo reas inghanishire, it had suited the Government to elta„ . 7, agricultural distress. The reduction of 30,000/ • on aerie 0011 W eel a n d seeds, attained at the expense of the deeply an- „.; •ng ern counties, he considered in the light of paltry be be' mockery. As to the condition of our con3rder e l s satie; lieved it to be very far i n d ee d f ro m sound. The el l '6i t teres' of the cotton trade this year would develops the de Os:, satire that could be devised upon the whole b o ut r we Ow; tem. It had been said, " Give us free trade, n'` ti erce,,, extend our commerce magnificently throughout t h e o nly whereas experience, since free trade, showed that Asia ita, quarters in which our trade had expanded were 50 _, s ee , those colonies of our own which our legislation ea c r 'y 4 was seeking to injure, if not to destroy.--(Heara, hhe ape: to Europe, there had actually been a decrease i 1850, of tation of our cotton goods to its various countries,,', 1849'1 not less than 2,000,000 of beyd. as compared w ~sport ba (Hear, hear.) It might very true that ou _ A be es increased since 1845, but the increase in our import nu' far infinitely greater. islensher f Mr. F. FRENCH complained that the Hon. he o Marylebone, not content with the omisision on tr,,_,. t rTnost the Government to do anything for Ireland, ED' a nted the distressed portion of her Majesty's dominions , w her. u pon 0 Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a new tau e Iv tbSt a He maintained that Ireland, in proportion to her m t not only more heavily taxed than this country, but was the most he ivify taxed country upon earth. _ so ld be Mr. BANKES assured Irish Members that he ex " tend t" the last man in the present state of Ireland to eho income-tax to that country. The Chancellor. e r s ,'s r i a ltti: chequer had spoken of those burdens of which th. the rists complained as if they in reality fell upon . tn_li t l e y and not upon the tenant; but the class upon wide.'" their ovia most heavily was that of the small cultivatorsvos.o_,l6 class land, neither a rich nor a powerful but a most was some,, du ty in the State. As regarded the window-tax, it u i Po ua nce not only to give his attention to those by w hose extend it also he might be more particularly returned, but to _ s 00 _,.,, A n s a. to the large towns that were situated within hi 0 , t u b " e v ros t or ! having their interest at heart, as well as that t the wind° s his constituents, he had raised his voice ageing ged from might be chan nier s, tax. He thought that the duty the oc cur • windows to houses greatly to the advantage of ne joined Ilea and without any great loss to the revenue. that laX , ro e ' tily therefore in the propriety of removing __ sOpinion up on icg to a future occasion the expression of hi the income-tax. the P's' Mr. MITCHELL expres sed his approval of wo uld • h he thoug modification of the timber duties, whic lead to the em pl o yment of a large number of shiP J AL - ,