The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

raMw liouso That i s not PaY9 ei in ref vindows• the t. 3%. nun oil the tno• ar mare lave for such ril' umber u° j 1U0,000., tie old ti tees. T ilEl l to no let) s case!, inaposstur tde lovro o . on of tri West -el 1y hitheri p auses wt,,S 4 ntry Ref Pe `he old tl not ba i l end so e", 3 of ow. now be I a year' it a 11, relieved ./ o repea l 01 escape t 0 likely to astancee.'" ded b 7 ~, f 0 1° 'wit 0- ft j• 4 ' J ER'" be to robot the ate foriiciv carnet edgy be of able to Poe red O r 60 1 :ho dor() de, It of Ol e vs 10 3e: w e gb; be br °ll , h ro as to nod tbc t he any to , o ml O O t° p to H t % o ``'; v ie ado, a t ' t bO Lai O re 100 10 tO P myself in a; position in which I might be reduced to the rtflcessity of-borrowing money to meet this claim in the aitent of its being established. And now, before stating b Y reason s f or adhering to my proposal respecting the t a `.owe-tax, I will briefly advert to the motion of which e Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ilerries) has * • yea notice. I l oo k upon the Right. Hon. Gentleman '3 , 0.1 eposition as the first step in the direction of the policy hick Lord Stanley has announced. It is duo to th e Eight ▪ his htHon. Gentleman to state that he has brought for proposition in the fairest possible manner. The ! i ght Hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce the property • het not to an extent which would be iuconsistent With • ; the maintenance of national faith, and up m that °f course, I krow I could rely on the Right Hon. 'entlenaan.. It tax is to be reduced, a portion should ho lei . ~r w e h t lii., zc h e lis'i t u lve once and I admit, also, that if the policy adverted is to be pursued, the Right -a. Gentleman's proposition is necessarily ths first tv , P to be taken., There is, however, this difference be tl I i think the policy wrong. I admit that e property -tax was first imposed for a temporary pun. p P' 3)rsea--rythat 01 meeting o deficiency—and that thu tem urpose was accomplished. But in 1845 the tax a as renewed for a different purpose.—(Hear, from the ) PPcsition.) It was renewed for the purpose of enabling le Rouse to make an improvement in fin:social legisla ' ten by removing impolitic restrictions. by reducing the .p ice of ar ti c l es of coosumie ion, and repea!ing duties .. t wu iell checked and retarded th e develepment of jades -1- I will f urther adm i t that those o bj ects h ave , to a a 'g r eat extent, been accomplished also. But there still 'amain other objects to be accomplished, such as those C'aich I have detail e d t o th e C o mmittee to-night, and I t. isnnot, consistently with the policy approve of, propose e l'eP , al ..f the property-tax until these objects shall al% been accomplished. line:lit freely that any mate riduction of the inc (.2_ - e-tt . • light to be followed Y its filial eat l actlau. is so impolitic as . a tal l reduction o f a tax . I d o n o t think that the in ;e-taxOl p resses heavily on those w h o pa y it. I cannot, nk that to a man having an income of 5,009/. a year "'whether derived from land or a profession— the pay sent of 150/, annually for the security with which he 3 1°Ye his i ncome is a heavy tax. Doubtless, this tax is Toupetethitt to objection on account of its inquisitorial nature, at: u a let u: to one objection applies as much to a tax of a penny o of a shilling. If we are to have an income at least fix it at an amount which will enable ,o Weer® h t l t derive benefit from it. My belief is that if we e o ia l n ps nl e te the proposed change now, no long time before the tax would be renewed, and eand then we should be in the same position in which . 'we are now. The question is, shall we repeal : an ineOtne.ta X , or s h a ll we ge t r id o f objectionable . posts? Let me direct the attention of the House to the What has t a k en p l ace d ur i ng the l ast f ew years . T a k e year wh en the income-tax first came into full opera : le• n, and last year,—that is to say, the year ending the .3til April, 1844 and that ending the sth of April -Mast' In the year ending the sth of April, 1844, the or uarY revenue from Customs, Excise, Starop, and Taxes, was 45,593,000/. Between that time and last year last of 7,0 00.000 / . o f taxes h ave b een r epealed; yet gist year the ordinary revenue from Customs, Excise, Stamps, and T axes , was a lit t l e more than that in 1844, :tamely, 45,662,000/.—(Hesr, hear.) Seven millions of taxes have been repealed under the pressure of the in 'come-tax, and yet the ordinary revenue remains at the setae amount. With this proof before us of the elasticity 'Of our trade and industrial resources—with this evidence that the income-tax does net press very heavily upon us eel am justified in believing that, if we remove objection able taxes, we shall before long be again in the same position in whi c h we are now with respect to revenue, while we shall have had the gratification of freeing trade from its fetters, enlarging com kerne, and—what I hold to be of even greater import ance — improving the condition and augmenting the com forts of the great body of the people.--(Hear, hear.) I will not Ito anticipate the di scuss i on t h a t w ill t a k e place on nday respecting the income-tax. I have stated what lagalwaPtra°Prtlscalela the reduction of duty on one of consumption—the reduction of duty on tonawauterial, and extensive relief to householders both lieve and country. These are measures whichl be : fort o f th ess entially necessary to the welfare and cora Genre", e P e °Ple. The proposal of the Right alton. whi c h , a n opposite, on the contrary, is to reduce ax (pinto naiet,aannsy rate, presses only on those who have ade render to pay it, and the repeal of which would IleFossib the execution of any of the t neleures d4 Righ t "Leh propose.—(Hear, hear.) Should the lonourable Gentleman'a proposal be adopted, the mass t lieved f t P h o e p i ulation cannot for a long period be re v._ tora h° inpoets which press upon them. I must ti e : ll nd the House, too, that the Right Honourable Gen ts_tuaa's proposal is coupled, not by him indeed, but by R u u e st g e r t r t Party with which he is connected, with a sug inaPosition of duty on foreign corn. If that propose Yb . e f u ll y carried out, not only will the benefits we , to confer o n t h e labouring man be withheld from `!) hut he will be deprived of those he already enjoys. cannot sufficiently deprecate the results which would c o x fro m such legislation. I have on many recent oc thei"s attached, and I still attach, more importance to sow P ol itical than the commercial results that would Diaae four cs a reversal of the legislation which has taken ~ the benefit of the population of this country. I e tleve it to be essential to the stability and well-being of ios titutione that the people should be contented and ti!,_Pt l Y• lam of opinion that if the people feel that cos y 11 . 1.8 the o bj e ct s of our so li c itud e —that tha improve a,bfethq their material a nd mor al condition is a matter Itc h the Legislature has at heart—they will re hsssratefully attached to the Constitution.—(Hear, g re :t) I believe that, under such circumstances, the 1 01 „ . 1 1Il asa of the peopl e will continue as firm in their at e ehY as they were three years ago, and that—notwith 130lIding the apprehensions which seem to have taken na l l usessi°ll of the minds of some Hon. Members—we which bid of to those outbursts of popular fury E a u i r " on a short time since overpressed a large portion of (The p an d Some of which were quenched in blood.— gen r Ight 11". Gentleman, after moving the resole loud e e h s P ee ting the income - tax, resumed his seat amidst e ers e The en t'eRMAN read the resolution as follows: That,twit:ljuttet"ards raising the supply granted to her Ma respective duties in Great Britain on profits and ng fr° r° Property, professions, trades, and offices, passthe stamp duties in Ireland granted by two Acts Whie el h i,in the sixth year of her present Majesty, and 444 u aye been continued and amended by several ..eq!lent Acts, shall be further continued for a time to ee hunted." RERRIES expressed his astonishment at the __terse taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after Teat occurred in the House last night. An understand e_g.w.aa come to last night, that his (Mr. Herries's) pro cat° 4 , n should be postponed to Monday, and yet. in at t . l_ a ce of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tb e 'ted not only his proposition, but the policy of tb h, Nay opposed to him, not with reference to _;," property-tax, but generally.hear.) "' it " What had occurred, he deeply regretted that he c oUld I to „not bring hi s propos i t i on b e f ore t h e H ouse un til r e n uaY• He wo u ld no t b e l e i i nto a di s cussion with ti sPect t o t h e policy of the party on his side of the else, but this he co u ld no t avo id sa yi ng , that the hrecellor of the Exchequer' s Budget, and the speech his which it was introduced, clearly showed that it was re In tention that th e i ncome t ax s h ou ld h e p er p e t ua l.— Iti,optid cheers.) He was provoked to refer to what the th eht Ron, Gentleman had stated. upon the renewal of te yroperty tax in 1845, when he (Mr. Herries) con th"ued, in opposition to the Right Hon. Gentleman, ant Sir R. Peel did then legitimately continue that tax t he th e conditions which had induced the House in l 'ne first instance to grant it. Sir R. Peel, when he pro posed its renewal, reminded them that he had originally „, tl tredueed it under the belief that if they found the proposed at the same time should Fi talar lr e e ig ae v e h o ic m h pl h is e hed all their purpose, they would ex el the period during which that tax should continue. t i l i nong other things, Sir R. Peel stated that he believed to t Property tax would press mainly upon the rich, and upon the poor. But what said the Right Hon. Gen man upon that occasion:— :a " Two gronds ave been stated which had led very nob to acqu u iesce h nce in the tax. One was, that it was ee tat which pressed exclusively on the rich, and took deductions from the employment of artisans. So tar ric h, he its being a tax which pressed exclusively on the t r, he believed that it pressed on the labouring popula- ' ~° ll by diminishing the means of giving them employ- But he But he did not believe that the Right Hon. Gen- ew "' hi mself could think that it was a tax which bore exclusiv el ydiet upon the ri c h ; b ecaus e, if he did, why he not impose it in Ireland?" Did the Right Hon. Gentleman still maintain that opinion? If not, why did not he extend it to Ireland?— (Rear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman gave another reason ten opposing the tax. Speaking of the g a i nger of the tax becoming perpetual, he said:— mi .' He thought it would be right that they should have the I _question fairly and fully discussed, namely, whether ortleconee-tax was to be regarded as a permanent source i t - s "venuee Let it be discussed on its own merits—on i nt , G all ground—but let us not b e l ed on step by step t i n : a Course from which it would be imp oss ibl e a ft er a me to extricate ourselves. " h g a t Was his (Mr. Berries's) opinion, and he should . on Monday next to show such grounds as he b 9 f ufillt would be sufficient to induce the Ho use to pause te l :, -cre t hey wade this tax una voidabl y perpetual; for it filling this, the first legitimate opportunity of ful to the engagements of Parliament with respectpetoopilte, oPass, no man could be so foolish as to believe that it f old ever be removed from the shoulders of the c ati t thi s c ountry.—Qlear.) He could not sit down without i c h rt hag to Seine of the topics that had been alluded to hadch of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he cer- Pa in ' marvelled much at the course that he had w_reued, and the nature of his arguments. Setting out lt h the tial Principle, first and foremost, that it was essen - Preserve a surplus in order to maintain the_pubinc. to Provide amply for the public service, and to 1 0. e ee a t ,,,h0 public against possible contingencies, he Pr. to to abandon revenue until he reduced his surplus e oas ° llll l not exceeding 300,000/. or 400,000/. Such in of hi l : lte ncY he (Mr. Henries) had never heard in the course kid Pa rliamentary career. Was that fulfilling the high Set „ °f ,tY Pretensions which the Right Hon, Gentleman sti e bt h It was the very reverse of all that, and, if at i aa :ere to be his course of proceeding, he might. t h ee ') have spared his eulogium upon the policy of qeritierent character. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. oet a jaaa had very unnecessarily introduced the policy with r t hetanley into his speech. What had that to do question? He Henries) hoped that on blond h • With, ) should be able to discuss the income-tax frs mr a t ..i at all involving questions of the corn duty or tioe, l l°. It was purely an economical and fiscal ques if they t" he hoped to be able to show to the House that all b?desired to administer fairly, usefully, and above atiesth 'meld _ fieenciel affairs of this country, they tte i "ld the renewal upon insufficient grounds of the m etes-t ax- - -(Rear,ee hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle tic,, Len astonished him by his boldness, and more espe- Y the very little feeling he seemed to have bad THE for ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer who administered the affairs of the country when Lord Melbourne was in office. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to thief very lightly of the unfortunate events which preceded the adveat of Sir R. Peel to office, and disposed to throw something like ridicule upon those who had the administration of financial affairs previous to 1842, when meat fortunately Sir R. Peel came to the rescue and saved the country from the state of ruin into which the Whig Administration had thrown it. Another point the Right Honourable Gentleman had referred to which he woudered he was not afraid to touch. The Right Honourable Gentleman adverted to 1848, when the income-tax was renewed, and it would seem as if he thought that all that passed upon that oc casion had been forgotten. — (Hear , hear.) It would seem as if he thought they had forgotten the proposition for a double income-tax—(`leer, hear) —and that when the House refused that, the Government found the means (a salutary lesson, indeed, to the House of Commons) of reducing the exp,nditure so as to render sufficient that which the House of Commons would give.—(Hear, hear.) What was it that had occasioned the difficulties and em barrassinents in which the Right Hon. Geutlemen at that time found himself—what but that unwarrantable aug meatetion of expenditure which had taken place under that Government when the navy, army, and ordnance were increased 3,000,0001. above what they had stood at for some years, aided by the dissolation and ruin that had been scattered over the .hole mercantile community by the uefortunate Curreecy Act? That was the case in 1848, when the income-tax was last renewed. He (Mr. Hurries) voted for that renewal, and he did so most consien tiowly, for, such was the condition to which the finances of the country had been reduced by the then Adminis tration, that he felt he could not. at that time, resist the terrible proposition of renewing the income-tax. But the country was now prospering—we had a surplus—all things were smiling; and now, if they renewed the in come-tax, the people of England never would be freed from it. Ile hoped that on Monday next they would make a beginning of the end of that tux.—(Hear, hear.) Lord R. GROSVENOR had ne v er j oined his friends in their opposition to the income-tax, for he bad always considered i: desirable :hue we should have more direct taxation than we had.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing would give him ;re ater satisfection than to see it permanently imposed upon the country provided it could be equitably assessed. He congratulated his Right Hon. Friend upon the statement he had made that evening, and upon his having adhered to the principle of his former Budget, which he had regarded as a perfectly honest and prac tical Budget—framed, not to catch the public eye, per haps, but to relieve as much as possible the springs of industry by removing those taxes which rendered articles of prime necessity dear to the people.—(Hear, hear.) He was carteinly much surprised at the outburst of in dignation teem the metropolis when the Right Honour able Gentleman spoke of a house-tax in place of the windovv•tax, because he believed it to be a very proper substitute. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that 150 1 . per annum was not a large sum for a man with 5,000 a year to pay for the enjoyment of that fortune in peace and security. He quite concurred in that view, and he could not forget that the we:king classes did not pay ne farthing of that tax. He thought it was quite remarkable that, since the enactment of the property-tax, political agitation had, with the single exception of the year 1848, greatly subsided, until he believed at the present moment be might almost say it was entirely extinct.—Gear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had entreated the House to aid him in withstanding any attempt to reduce the duties upon small articles. That appeared to be tantamount to declaring that, however unjust the duty upon small articles, it ought to be retained. There was one which he (Lord H. Grosvenor) should certainly oppose—he meant the at torney's annual certificate duty; and he gave notice that, upon the earliest day, he should move for its repeal.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME said that when the former Budget was proposed he had objected to paying 1,000,000/. per an num off the funded debt while heavy excise duties yet remained. He was surprised, therefore, that upon this occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman had not stated whether he intended to apply a penny or a million to that purpose. He saw from an official document that the surplus was 2,500,0031., although the Right Honourable Gentleman bad stated it to be only 1,800,0001. What be came of the difference? Was he going to apply any portion of it to pay off the capital of the national debt? He should like to know from the Right Hon. Gen tleman, before he proceeded further, what he proposed _ . to do with the national debt? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was surprised that so old a Member of Parliament as the Hon. Gentleman should not know that it was provided under an Act of Parliament that, fur the purpose of paying off the national debt, one foarth p a r t of tee sur plus of any one year must he appropriated to the reduc tion of that thbt.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME was aware of that, and for that very rea son he would exhaust the surplus by reducing taxation. —(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted that Government was established for the benefit of the many, and that taxes should be taken off which would relieve the working-classes. Did applying 1,000,0004 a year towards paying off the national debt relieve the poor man? [An Hun. MEMBER—Yes, by reducing the interest.] If he would remove the soap-tax be would benefit the working man ten times more.—(Hear, hear.) While there was a tax on soap, on paper, on ad vertisments, on newspapers, he was prepared to advo cate their repeal in preference to paying off the capital of the debt. He was prepared to maintain the income tax with the view of reducing other taxes which pressed upon the poor, but not in order to keep up large and un necessary establishments. He was sorry that the Right Hon. Gentleman who had left his place (Mr. Hurries), and who had adverted to this subject, had not assisted him in his attempt at reducing the estimates, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly said to them, that having passed the estimates, they bad no right to complain. tie contended that the estimates were now 4,000,0001. more than they ought to be. It; then, the ' estimates were reduced they might get rid of the income-tax altogether, or take off every excise duty that now existed, the ordinary revenue of the country being fully capable of maintaining every legitimate establishment. He would not agree to renew the house-tax while so large an amount was to go towards paying off the capital of the national debt. He would rather pay 7 per cent. income-tax than see an excise duty on tea, malt, soap, paper, and such articles; and it was a hardship that people could not advertise what they wanted without paying a heavy duty, when so many as ten thousand advertisements might be seen in an American paper. The removal of the window-tax, in a sanitary point of view, was praiseworthy. He could not oppose the income-tax; and be should conclude by repeattng his conviction that, in the financial arrange ments of the country, the object to be kept in view was giving the greatest possible relief to the mass of the people. Mr. TRELA.WNY reminded the House that he had proposed to appropriated 2,000,0001. towards the extinc tion of the national debt. Many would think the prosi tioa Quixotic; but ho believed that to be the fairest mode of removing the pressure of taxation. The metropolitan Members asked the repeal of the window-tax, others asked the repeal of the attorney-tax. These were demeeds made for particular classes. What he wanted was a re duction that should be spread over as large a surface as possible. The working classes perfectly understood the attempts to get rid of those taxes which pressed on the middle classes in the first instance. If he had to plant a colony, he would see that each person paid his fair pro portion to the general expenses of the community. He was not against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the window-tax, but he thought the an nual appropriation of a sum for the reduction of the national debt oughttobe made. Was it the ohject of Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to impose perpe tual duties on corn, as the Right Hon. Member for Stam ford seemed to signify? Such a measure, he ventured to say, would be most unpopular with the country. Mr. BAILLIE observed, that he had heard the first financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with some regret. The Right Hon. Gentleman then said it was not intended to alter or and modify the income tax, that he had been adverse to it, but had changed his opinion, observing, the great advantage it gave to Sir Robert Peel in the reduction of import duties by the substitution of direct taxation; and he stated that the Opposition had supported bim on the ground that it was his intention to follow in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel. Sir R. Peel had not recommended the income-tax in any such terms. When he first proposed it there was a great deficit in the Exchequer, and there had been a de ficit for successive years; and he called on the House to support the public revenue when he proposed the in come tax for a limited period, because he thought the necessities of the country would not render it necessary for more than three years. What did Sir R. Peel state when he proposed to renew the tax in 1845?—" I don't wish to say ono word in favour of a continuance of this taxation beyond the three years; I don't think the House will agree that the income and property tax, as now im posed, ought to be permanent."—(Hear, hear.) What was the statement of Sir R. Peel in 1848?—" That one of his reasons for consenting to allow the income-tax to be continued for three years was that only last year, in time of peace, you were obliged to add 10,000,000/. of debt, and on that account increased efforts ought to be made to meet an increased expenditure of the country." But the Right Honourable Gentleman asked the House to allow the tax to remain, that he might reduce import and other duties. They must hold it, then, to be a permanent burden. If so, could there not be modifications of the great injustice it worked to particular classes ? It operated most unjustly on pro fessional incomes. A graduatel scale might be intro dhs u i ee e d bo . annsk ß tiet urust e,litshe wished rather to call attention to the op eration of the tax on the owners and occupiers of land. Why should they not have the privilege of returning the like annual net produce of their receipts, and paying on that, m:Techwannetrs, of and a large eufaecsttuarte on manufacturers the One we of a coast of Scotland, had, for the last four or five years, Paid income tax o n a ' rental of not less than 4,0001. or that he had notlraecaeiraveedmrdi.aol 5,000/. a-ye ar . e m t e h e i s whieh private f t o the i ne e m T e r e f a r s o u ra r y pro perty, but that he hadt h h ea stat edhe at p r o - advanced for the support of the peoplerhatwl3,3ooaonLief injustice s erreesloyu mightr ces . (He be e r , m h e e d a i r e . d ) if the tax was to be permanent. The Lords of the Trea sury, in reply, admitted that it was a case of great hard ship, but added, that the law was imperative, and that they could give him no redress, He had no objection that the tax should be permanent, or even increased, but it ought to he properly adjusted. Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had Row placed the house -tax on a rational principle. There was, however, no necessity for im posing a house-tax at all, and he should give it his most decided opposition. The Right Hon. Gentleman had based his calculations on an erroneous principle when he assumed a falling off equivalent to the reduction of taxation. Experience poin:el to a different conclusion. Taking the five years from 1822 to 1826, during which a large amount of taxation was removed, the falling off SUN, in the revenue from what remained was equal to one third of the amount of the taxation reduced. So in 11 years from 1830 to 1840 the taxes reduced were 8,600,0001., the falling off in revenue 2,700,000/. only. The reduction of taxation in the nine years from 1842 amounted to 5,138 0001. The amount of the taxes, after reduction, was last year 4,700,0001. more than in 1841, the year previous to the yea: of reductions. He ven tured to predict that the actual !ailing off on account of the window-tax would not equal the amount of the re duction. The Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was pleased to say the metropolitan Members were out of their senses on the subject of the window-tax. It seemed, that in the estimation of the Noble Lord, it was only those who sat on the Treasury bench that were in their senses. Lord R. GROSVENOR begged to state that what he said was, he hoped the metropolitan Members had come to their i,enses.—(A laugh.) He did not demur to the application the Hon. Member had made of his expression, but it had not been put as the Hon. Member said. If it were signified that he (Lord R. Grosvenor) was so tied to the present Ministry that when they changed their position on a subject he went with them necessarily, he must tell the Honourable Member that it was an insult to those constituents who had returned bim (Lord Robert Grosvenor) to that House, and who never had returned any man who had sacrificed his independence. Lord DUNCAN expressed his gratification in having to address the House more briefly than on former occa sions when the window-tax was brought under notice. Lie could not concur with the Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex in sa3ing that the present pro position was the same with that made on a former occasion. It was totally different. In the first proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to retain two.thirds of the window-tax, and old houses and new were to be treated very differently The present plan seemed to show the truth of the adage " Second thoughts are best." The second plan involved a total abandonment of the window-tax. Relief to the extent of 500,000/. a-year snore than by the former plan was to be given. The country were much indebted to his Right Hen. Friend and the metropolitan Members who had been so much censured; and, without pledging himself to support the plan now proposed, he wished to express his opinion that it was a great improvement on the former. _ _ _ _ Sir B. HALL, as one of the metropolitan Members who had lately been "out of their senses," reminded his Noble Friend that he might rather have said it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been out of his mind, for the metropolitan Members had not changed theirs. He recollected a remarkable sneech made by the Hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, when out of office, with reference to the income-tux, and there was a general impression, when that Hon. Gentleman took office that it was almost a guarantee that there would be a different arrangement with regard to thantax. Before saying anything upon the window-tax he must allude to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to a certain meeting or meetings that had taken place in the metropolis. The Right Hon. Gentleman expressed himself as surpri;ed that any persons at that meeting should have been, as he said, favourable to a breach of good faith with the public creditor. Ile did not know to what particular meeting the Right Hon. Gentleman referred. There had boon a number of meetings in the metropolis, but he knew of no individuals .;ho at any of them had expressed a desire for a breach of good faith. What was contended for was, that by means of economy and a proper adminis tration of the affairs of the country, a sufficient amount might be saved to enable them to repeal the income-tax. —(Hoar.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had also referred to the statements made to him by various deputations on the subject of the window-tax, to the eff‘sct that they advocated its repeal on the ground of sanitary re form. But those deputations merely took up the ques tion of sanitary reform because that was the position which had been taken up by gentlemen who were now members of the Government—many of the Whigs when oat of office having contended on sanitary grounds that the window-tax should be repealad.—(Hear.) With re gard to the scheme of a house-tax proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, he maintained that, so long as there was a possibility of reducing the public expenditure, no such tax should be imposed—(Hear, hear)—and he was resolved to take the sense of the House on that question when the proper time came for doing so.—(Hear, hear.) The sum that would be derived from the imposition of this tax was 700,0001., and he thought a reduction to that amount might easily be made in the expenditure of the country so as to render the tax unnecessary.—(hear.) Mr. SPOONER asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that tenant-farmers were to continue to pay the income-tax on an assumed rate of profit, though they might be farming at a loss ?—whether he meant to melee any modifications as far as life interests and professional incomes were concerned—and for what period he ictended to impose the tax ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed. a renewal of the income-tax for three years. With re gard to the other questions of the Hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be much better to discuss those topics separately when they came regularly before the House. It was a very complicated web the Hon. Gentleman pro posed to unravel, and it could not well be entered upon now; but he should be ready to discuss roll the questions raised when the proper time came.—(Hear.) Mr. HENLEY looked upon the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one tending to the destruction of the public credit, and subversive of those principles on which the interests of a great country like this should be sustained. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of a surplus, and then he announced that there was a powerful body ready to seize him by the throat and order him to deliver to an amount nearly equal to the whole of that surplus. He told them of a probable claim by the East India Company of 400,0001.; and then he spoke of the expense of the Kafir war—the last Kafir war, as they all knew, having cost a sum of 1,100,000/. —(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman next com plained that the gentlemen behind him, who had been made so rich, be said, by our recent policy, would not let his surplus alone, and insisted on pulling the revenue down to an extent inconsistent with the public credit. Having made these statements, he brought forward a scheme which left the surplus so small that it would be entirely swallowed up by the Kafir war and the East India Company's claim, should it be preferred.—(Hear.) hear.) After this they heard a great deal of clap trap about taking off the taxes on articles of con sumption, and about the two kinds of direct taxation which he meant to preserve—the window-tax and the income-tax. He called upon the Rouse, in the first place, to take off every tax that pressed upon con sumption, and then he proposed to limit the direct taxation to a comparatively small number of persons. How long would the public credit be sustained in such circumstances as these?—(Hear, hear.) Such a state of things was calculated to create alarm, for with the taxes paid by a small number of people, instead of by the great mass of the community, how could they expect long to maintain the public credit?—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that the revenue of the country would either be increased or the expenditure cut down, so that they might encounter no such risk as would be involved iu en entire want of surplus.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MACGREGOR said.there were two questions be fore the House. One was whether they were to go back to protection—(oh; oh I),—and the other was whether they should follow the course recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) 1.13 hoped the surplus would be increased by means of a reduction in the public expenditure. The proposal of the Hon. Member fur Stamford as to the income-tax was the most dangerous that could be made. Ho (Mr. Macgregor) was for continuing the income-tax, but not on the prin ciple upon which it was now levied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought, had acted on sound princi ples with regard to the window-tax, but he could not have supported the first scheme of a house-tax which he had brought forward. To show the pressure of taxa tion on articles of consumption, he might state that an artizen with a wife and two children, and earning 751. a-year, paid of taxes on necessary articles of food for his family 71. Bs., or 10 per cent. of his income. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked whether warehouses, manufactories, banking-houses, and other places wed for carrying on trade and commerce, were to be included in the payment of 6d. in the pound? If that was not the case great complaint would justly be made against the measure; and he should like to hear on what principle that description of property, which did not pay the window-tax, should be made to pay the new house-tax? —(Hear, hear.) Then why was a shopkeeper, paying say, 350 L of rent, of which 501. was for the dwelling house, to be called on to pay on the rent of his shop, viz. on 3001., which at present did not contribute anything? Why should that class of the community be singled out as the objects of such injustice?—(Hear, hear.) As to the coffee duties, he thought the Government should, when making a reduction, withdraw the order in Council relative to the admission of chicory. He would support the income-tax if it was to be renewed on fair principles, but he could be no party to passing it with its present in equalities. He had presented a petition from 91 corn meters who were charged for income-tax, though he could show that many of these men had in reality not one-half of the sum of 1501. a-year, and yet they had to pay 7d. in the pound just in the same way as the wealthiest landed proprietor.—(Hear, hear.) Such a mode of imposing the income-tax was alike impolitic and unjust.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. BROWN thought the sum calculated upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for contingencies would be quite sufficient, notwithstanding all that had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman opposite. As to the Budget, he thought the reduction of the timber duties was a boon to which the shipping interest were entitled, especially since we bad exposed them to competition with all the world. The reduction of the coffee duties would be a boon to every class of the community, and he must say that he regarded the proposed house-tax as a very proper and just measure.—(Hear.) He hoped all those Members who had supported progressive measures would not desert a Ministry at a time when a Protection ist system was attempted to be re-introduced.—(Cheers.) He believed this country was as lightly taxed as any na tion in the world, and he appealed to all honest Free traders to support the proposition of the Government. Sir D. L. EVANS said that sixteen yours ago he as sisted in the repeal of the house-tax, and he therefore felt it difficult to acquiesce in the proposal to renew that impost; at the same time he admitted that the pre sent plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a great improvement on his former scheme. He hoped, nowever, that attention would be given to the points ad verted to by the worthy Alderman. Many thousands of persons in this town took houses to let them out in lodg ings; he was of opinion that those parties had a claim to be placed in the same situation as the shopkeepers. While he was willing to support a property-tax, he wished to see modifications introduced with respect to the income-tax Mr. rANFORD said, it appeared to him that some Boa. Gentlemen seemed to consider not so much the merit or demerit of the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as they did the question whether Minis- LONDON, SATURDAY tars should be maintained in office or not. But that was a principle on which it was impossible the legislation of this country could be satisfactorily conducted. The Members for the metropolis had met together and given a pledge to their constituents that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not unconditionally repeal the win dow-tax they would refuse the supplies.—(Cries of " No, no.") He had heard the Hon. Baronet the Mem ber for Marylebone express his approbation of the mea• sure brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westmin ster had also declared his unqualified approval of it; but he had not yet heard the Hon. Member for Fins bury's opinion upon the subject. When the repeal of the window-tax was first demanded it was made on sanitary grounds. Its repeal was conceded, and a house-tax was substituted. Were the parties satisfied? No; because the sanitary question was made a pretext for claiming the repeal of a tax which fell chiefly upon the middle classes. In villages and small towns houses with only seven windows afforded comfortable homes to the poor, and those houses paid no tax at all. The great error of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in giving way to these agitators of the metro polis. If the Right Honourable Gentleman had had the courage to resist those gentlemen who, leaving their shops to boys, assembled in conclave and issued their mandates from the Marylebone vestry, threatening to stop the supplies unless the Chancellor of the Exche• quer unconditionally repealed the window-tax, he might have been able to make a well-considered modification of the income-tax. But the Right Hon. Gentlemen yielded to a metropolitan agitation, and was therefore compelled to retain that tax in its present most objec tionable shape. Mr. WAKLEY said, that if the Hon. Member felt die satisfied with the shopkeepers of the metropolis, he (Hr. Wakloy) must express himself very much dissatis fied with too shopkeepers of Reading.—(Cheers and ltughter.) Did the Hon. Gentleman think it wrong for the people to agitate when they considered there were public abuses to redress? (Mr. STANFORD, "No.") Then why complain? It was quite clear they had an im proved Budget in consequence of agitation on the past of the Right Hon. Gentlemau's own friends and ordinary supporters.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite clear the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had that night given mortal offence; but was it the budget that had done this? No; it was the speech.--(Cheers.) It was the speech he had delivered that had called forth so much bitterness and anger. In the Budget there was very little that was new. though that which was now was very good.—(Cheers.) The speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman would give great satisfaction to the country, and he could assure the Hon. Member for Oxfordshire that he was entirely mistaken if he supposed it would create any alarm with reference to sustaining public credit in this country. If he understood anything of the constitution of the country, the way to sustain public credit was to satisfy the masses of the people, and the Right Hon. Gentlemen might be assured that his speech of that night ,would be received by them with a sentiment of respect and feedings of admiration. The Right Hon. Gentleman had becemo convinced that the multitude must be legislated fur, and nut the few; that the great interests of this country which were to be attended to were those that had reference to the millions, and that the units must take care of themselves in the beat way they could. Although the income-tax was to be re-imposed without any change, yet the Right Hon. Gen tleman might be assured that the people were in favour of the principle of direct taxation. What they demand, d was a tax upon property; and he considered the Chan cellor of the Exchequer to be distinctly committed to that principle. He, however. hoped the Right Hon. Gentle men would reconsider his proposition with regard to the income-tax. The tex cperated most unjustly as at pre sent imposed. It was a monstrous thing that a person who possessed an immense amount of realized property should pay no more per cent. than an individual wao obtained his income by the exercise of his skill and by the sweat of his brow. It was so unjust that it would not bear discussion.' There was no difficulty in con structing a graduated scale of taxation ou property; if, therefore, with a view to gain an opportunity to intro duce such an alteration a motion should be made for the renewal of the tax for one year only, he should give that motion his support. Mr. STANFORD explained. Mr. T. BARING could not but congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the speech of the Hon. Gentleman in support of the Government. The Hon. Gentleman said that the object of that speech was to prove that the relief of the masses from taxation was the best mode of maintaining the national credit; and he also said that he saw in that speech a disposition to conciliate popular opinion. Substantially, that the ob ject of the Rightlion. Gentleman was to make a great speech in support of public credit, and do little or no thing besides to support it.—(Laughter, and bear.) He (Mr. Baring) agreed on that point with the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury. It was right, in his opinion, for a Government to have a surplus; and he maintained that the proper course for them to pursue would be to retain that surplus against contingencies, and not to fritter it away in the reduction of slight taxation. When the Right Hon. Gentleman, therefore, proposed to relieve the window-tax, he could not understand his policy or that of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed in his speech to relieve the country from taxation on articles of general use; and yet be only intended to repeal the window• tax, which pressed upon no more than 400,000 houses iu the whole country. This was not relief to the people—it was merely yielding to that pressure from without which had been applied by the metropolitan Members.—(Hear, hear.) That was, in fact, class legislation of the most objectionable description, because it was giving relief to those towns which it appeared were the most prosperous, while it gave nothing to that class which was most distressed. The Right Hon. Gentleman had formerly proposed to relieve clover and other seeds used in agri cultural operations, and also take upon himself the sup port of pauper lunatics; now, however, after his late incubation, he intended to do nothing of the kind, but to leave agriculture as he found it on that occasion. The Hon. Member for Finsbury lauded direct taxatioa. He (Hr. Baring) had no fear for the national credit; but he certainly should not wish it to depend solely upon direct taxation, because, in periods of national distress there would be a strong temptation to break faith with the public creditor. He thought, however, direct and indi rect taxation might be advantageously combined. As he had before stated, he held it to be the duty of the Government to retain a surplus, not only for the purpose of meeting unforeseen contingencies, not even for the purpose of upholding the national credit, but also for the purpose of meeting any deficiency that might arise, without recurring to further taxation. A surplus in a season of prosperity would prevent taxation in a season of adversity.—(llear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle man, however, telt that his language ill-expressed the meaning of his & measures; and he (Mr. Baring) was satisfied, that though the Right Hon. Gentleman's pri vate wish was to uphold the national credit, his public acts, compelled by Hon. Gentlemen on the other side, tended to the sacrifice of the national creditor.—(Hear, hear.) It was the misfortune of the present Govern ment to be. weak and yielding, and therethre to be obliged to sacrifice their own convictions to the pressure from without; and the result would be, that if there was any tuddca check to the national prosperity—such as war, or that bill of the India Company which had been al luded to as waiting to be paid—the country would he left in a position either to borrow, or to tax the already distressed people for the purpose of meeting it. Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had ex pressed a great deal of indignation at the course pro posed to be taken by his Right Hon. Friend. The course proposed by his Right Hon. Friend, however, who wished above all things to maintain public: credit, was to the effect that it was not only desirable to have a revenue: sufficient for the purposes of government, but also to have, in case of any unforeseen contingency, or any sudden demand, the means of meeting either with out having recourse to fre h debts or new taxation. So far his Right Hon. Friend was in agreement with the Lion. Gentleman. What, however, did the Govern ment propose? They proposed in the present year to have some 900,0001. surplus to meet all demands. If no alteration took place in the revenue, they would have 350,0001. surplus. But in making alterations in such duties as those on timber and coffee, it was found by ex perience that though there might be a loss on the first year, in the second and in the succeeding years there would most probably be found a much larger revenue than before from these article.—(Loud cheers.) Be sides that, however, there was the means of making further reductions afforded.—(Hear, hear.) So that with 350,000/. certain, the Chancellor of the Exche quer might very fairly expect even still greater surplus than that on which he had calculated.—(Hear.) All this, however, excited the indignation of the Hon. Gentleman, who maintained that nothing but a weak Government, acting under the impulse of pressure from without, could act in that manner. And yet the Minis ter whom his Right Hon. Friend followed—a wise Mi nister, too—had in 1847 laid down as a basis a sum no larger than 90,0001. —(Laughter and hear.) That Minister had stated his reasons for expecting an increase of revenue, and the result proved that he was fully jus tified in his expectation. The Hon. Gentleman had not, however, on that occasion given vent to the virtuous in dignation with which he had just treated the House.— (Hear, hear.) He was, on the contrary, quite content to f o llow in the wake of hat Government and to support that Minister who kid down the principle that 90,0001. was a sufficient surplus for the purpose of meeting all contingencies. The Hon. Member who now said that the Government was weak, seemed to forget the place in which he was speaking—(Hear, bear, and laughter) —and instead of being aware that he was speaking in the House of Commons on a matter of figures—which he was well able to deal with—had forgotten what took place in 1845; and deeming the present an occasion for a display of after-dinner eloquence—(Hear, laughter, and cries of "Oh")—instead of availing .himself of his great practical knowledge to satisfy himself of the facts, he had made a party speech against the Govern ment for party reasons, and not for the advancement of a great principle.—(Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said all the best speeches in the House of Commons were after-dinner speeches—(Hear, and laughter)—and for his own part he had never heard the Noble Lord himself more happy than in a speech of that description.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury had told the House that the pre sent Budget was not one bit better than that which the lion. Member had previously condemned, but that its badness was made up for by the speech which introduced it.— (Hear, laughter, and No.) That it was as bad, in fact, as that Budget which had been denounced at those meetings alluded to by the Hon. Member for Reading; but that this was no matter now, as the Government gave good speeches.—(Laughter.) This reminded him (Mr. Disraeli) of a speech of the Noble Lord—not an after dinner speech—the speech he made on introducing the measure against Papal aggression. (Laughter.) That speech was certainly a most admirable one as re garded matter; but the misfortune was, that the measure which it introduced was by no means equal to it. EVENING, APRIL 5, 1851. —(Laughter and cheers.) The country was, therefore, at this moment governed by a Ministry who depended on th , ir speeches and not en their measures.—(Hear, and laughter.) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought the speech of the Hon. Member for Huntingdon a very good speoe's. The Noble Lord, however, thought differently, for what cause he (Mr. Disraeli) could not say. But he could not agree that there was any analogy, as drawn by the Noble Lord between the present case and the surplus left by the late Sir R. Peel. Tho Government of Sir R. Peel was a strong Government, for inAtence, atthat period.—(Hear.) It was therefore a very different Government from that of the Noble Lord, who had so often to come to the table of that House and announce a change in his measures with the utmost humility.—(Hear.) Sir R Peel had confidence in himself; the Noble Lord could not say that for his Government.—(Hear.) The Government of Sir a Peel was supported on that occasion by a strong party, and therefore :the Minister might make any ar rangements he saw fit to make; but the Noble Lord was not in the rune position, for he had only a large surplus, with a small party.—(Year, and a laugh.) But there were other circumstances which made the two cases still less analagous. The speech of Sir R. Peel, when he had that surplus of 90,000,0001.—(Loud laughter)- 90,0001. rather; Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they never would get that surplus. The speech of Sir R. Peel on that occasion was not stuffed full of boastful anticipa tions of a surplus, nor with explanations of hie improved mode of administering the finances of the country.-- (Hear,Thear.) Any one who had heard the Right Hon. Gentleman, however, would suppose he was about to pay off the national debt, the basis of all his statements being to maintain the public credit by means of his surplus. But what was that surplus ? It was a false surplus, as had been shown by the First Lord of the Treasury himself, who had reduced it from 900,000/. to 350,0001. He (Mr. Disraeli) denied the correctness of the statement. When that mysterious sum claimed by the East India Company was paid, where would be the surplus then ? What was that claim ? When was it made ? Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —Yes terday.— ( Leugh ter.) Mr. DISRAELI—It was a fortunate circumstance then that the present Administration returned to power, that they might pay this claim which would be other wise left to their successors. As he was on his legs, he, too, would make a friendly observation on the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Right Hon. Gen tleman introduced his Budget he took credit to himself for the sympathy he felt with the sufferings of the owners and occupiers of land, when he proposed a reduction in the duty on certain seeds. That proposition excited the risibility of some Members on his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House—it did not excite his risibility. The Right Hon. Gentlemman also proposed to bear the burden of pauper lunatics, which appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli) to be the admission of a most important principle as re garded local taxation; for he could not for the life of him perceive the difference in that respect between a common pauper and a lunatic pauper, nor understand how, if the Consolidated Fund was to support the one, it should not suport the other. The Right Honourable Gentleman, however, now withdrew both propositions, because, as he said, his nervous susceptibility had been offended at the manner in which they were received by the opposite side of the House. He (Mr. Disraeli) could not recollect a *le speech against them; and certainly no lengthened discussion had taken place on the subject of the Budget. But, even supposing some Hon. Gentlemen had, by a sneer or a smile, expressed their sense that that amount of relief was by no means commensurate with the admission of agricultural distress in the Speech from the Throne, and of the sufferings of the owners and occupiers of the land, it did not by any means follow that it afforded a sufficient reason for the withdrawal of the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition. —(Hear, hear.) If, however, the Right Hon. Gentle man considered this a sufficient ground for such with drawal, with what degree of consistency of conduct could he vindicate the course he had pursued with respect to his proposition on the window duties, which had been not alone not received with cordial approbation by Hon. Members opposite, but which had, at public meet ings called to denounce the Government, been held up to public execration. Yet the gratitude of the Government to their indignant supporters was to in crease the scheme of relief from taxation, which they had gratefully accepted, while they, on this side of the House, who had scarcely urged a word of moment against the proposition for the relief of land, found the pro position withdrawn off hand without notice, and Go vernment now stood in this position—they commenced the session with assuring their Sovereign that the only class which was suffering was the agricultural class, and when they brought forward their financial scheme not a single proposal for relief was offered, or a single word of sympathy expressed for the condition of the owners and occupiers of land.—(Hear.) He did not know what the feelings of the House were, but he knew what were his feelings, and he considered the course taken by the Hon. Member for Stamford with relation to the financial scheme, on Monday, was temperate and wise. It was impossible to foresee what might occur. Members at the gangway, who were now the enthusiastic supporters of Government, could hardly have conceived that they would be inspired so soon with motives of so exalted a character—(Laughter)—but if his Right Hon. Friend did not succeed in carrying his proposition, he (Mr. Disraeli) would put fairly before the House and the country the sufferings of the owners and occu piers of land—and taking the question of the surplus which Government had dealt with in so capricious a manner, and had yielded so large a proportion to clamour so unauthorised—he would ask the House and the country to come to a decision as to what should be done with that surplus, and whe ther, as one class was in a state of suffering, that surplus should not be dedicated to the mitigation of that suffer ing.—(Hear) He would put that question before the House; he would show how the suffering could be fairly mitigated, for he would not have the course of justice disturbed by any suspicion that he had any wish or mo tive except to give relief to the suffering agricultural in terest. He would not permit the worn-out plan of al lowing the general policy of our commercial system to be mixed up with the principle of justice to the owner and occupier. He would simply ask the House to look at the question by itself, and after all the mockery of financial manceuvres—the mockery of financial expe dients and injustice—after all the attempts to revive an exploded scheme of finance—he and they would invite the House to make an effort to relieve one class—the only class acknowledged to be in a state of suffering. Viscount EBRINGTON would trouble the House with a few words on the propositions submitted by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It might be humiliating for a Whig Government to be able only trimake good speeches and propose bad measures, as the Hon. Gentleman op posite said; but it was more humiliating in his opinion for a party to be able to make good speeches, and to be incapable of proposing measures es had been admitted by ha chief.—(oll.) The Noble Lord then pronounced a eulogium on the proposition for reducing the duty on coffee and timber, and especially for the proposal to sub stitute a moderate house tax for an objectionable win dow-tax. _ _ Mr. FREWEN said the Right Hon. Gentleman had declared he did not wish to send down a regiment of tax gatherers to collect taxes; but t►ois was exactly what the Right Hon. Gentleman had done with respect to the county with which he was connected. A number of writs had been served on the farmers in that district for taxes, and it wa-, impossible to describe the amount of distress and suffering which bad been occaeioned. He had re ceived upwards of sixty letters on the subject, and he could assure the House if they were read they would prove that the agricultural interest in that district was nearly ruined. It was impossible this state of things could go on without that part of the country being re duced to as bad or even a worse state than was Ireland. Mr. WAWN argued that the changes in our naviga tion-laws bad damaged the shipping interest. Mr. LABOUCHERE must repel the assertion that the repeal of the navigation-laws had or was likely to operate injuriously on British shipping or on the British shipbuilder. He was satisfied, looking at the cost of iron and shipbuilding materials, that with fair play we could build ships so as to compete advantageously with any other country in the world. Even before the reduction of duty ou shipbuilding materials was made the British shipbuil der was able to build ships to compete with those of any nation. He observed by the returns that only 10,000 tons of foreign shipping had been registered within a given period. He could not say the number of ships building in the various dockyards, but, taking the port of London alone, it would be found that of iron steamers more than 10,000 tons had been built on foreign ac count. In iron steam-ship building this country pos sessed immense advantages, and this enabled us not only to supply our own wants, but thos , " of foreign nations. It was not the proper time for going into this aiscus sion, otherwise ho should have no difficulty in proving his case. Mr. WAWN said he had documents in his possession to prove that the shipping interest had been in a dis tressed condition for many years. Colonel SIBTHORP could not make head or tail of the Budget. He believed, however, there was far more tail than head in it. He gave notice that he intended to take the sense of the House as to the effect of the income tax now levied on the farmers of England. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had made a miserable exhibi tion, and what he had now said he might have said six weeks ago. The reason why the R i g ht Hon. Gen i tlo - man did not do so was because he wanted to smugg e a few votes for the army and navy estimates, and for car rying on the credit of the country, about which so much boast had been made. Colonel THOMPSON truste d that the friends of the manufacturing interest would sustain the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any opposit ion that might be brought against his financial scheme from the other side of the House. The friends of the or and the worki classes be paid by were bound to support the Government on the present y br s e h a o d ul o d i tihnethpeoor main,aia the sources occasion; for the real question at issue was whether the t taxation j o o r f the oot country thentr of Mthre.ir.employ ment. ALCOGK saw no great benefit to the likelyagricultu wole to arise from the amen d e d B u d get, it would be mo re sat i s f actory to t h e public interestloboe a than his previous sch eme . As retarded though tonlat large o eg h the income-tax he approved of the principle on which it was based; though of its details he must say that, so far as they affected the tenant farmers, they were most arbi trary and unfair. The abolition of the income-tax would of necessity render perpetual the malt -tax, and ho trusted therefore that the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) would not lend himself to such a fallacy. Mr. G. HUDSON, in reference to some observations which had fallen from the President of the Board of Trado, directed attention to a petition which he had presented from the ship builders and owners of Sunder land, complaining of great distress in their trae.e, and h i h n e s t G e a o d v o e r f n p m a r e t a l t y o , e abolish s t o h d e tiinm thor o h n er t du e t c y a 1 2 1 e l dt get Budget. Mr. LABOUCEERE wished to atato one single I fact in answer to the Hon. Molder and it was this, that during the past year mo , e, and larger, and belle; ships bad teten buih. at Sunerlaud than had ev , .r been built since Sunderland was a shipping port.—(tdear.) Mr. HUDSON admitted that, but said it oil not fol. 10,57 that the trade was therefore prosperous.—(on.) He himself had boon lergely ergaged in trade, and hod gone on for years making no profits at all. Establishments could not be broken uo all at once. Mr. HEYWORTII said that the true policy for the landed interest to pursue, was to give every facility for 1 the extension of trade and commerce. Hon. Members had talked of repudiating the national debt. If it ever should he repudiated, it would be from the continuance of a system of taxation which plundered the labouring people of the country. The resolution was then put from the chair and agreed to. On the motion of Mr, C. LEWIS, 17,556,000/. via; voted to be raised by Exchequer-bills, for the service of the year 1551. Report to be received on Monday. The House then resumed. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ACT (REPEAL) BILL On the motion of Mr. J. STUART, the House went into Committee on this Bill. After a few words from Mr. STANFORD, Sir J. ROMTLLY suggested that a clause should be introduced to prevent the Bills and Acts which had been drawn up this session being affected by tile present. measure. Mr. J. STUART had no objection to bring up such a clause on the report. Mr. F. MAULE said that that very day two important Bills had been sent to the Lords drawn up in conform:Ty with the Act, and come such clause as that proposed was necessary to prevent then being aff..-!eted by this measure. Tho Bill then went through the Committee. Report on Monday. Oa the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS, the following Com mittee on Expiring Laws was appointed:--Mr. C. Lewis, Mr. Hayter, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Rasher, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Hume, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Bellew, Mr. Greene, Mr. Rich, Sir George Clerk, Sir John Young, and Mr. Stafford. Mr. CHARTERIS moved for a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the present state of the ordnance survey of Scotland. and on the works which will be required for its completion. Ho said the survey for England, with the exception of the four northern counties, had been completed, so also had the survey of ' Ireland, within the last 20 years. Though the survey of Scotland had commenced in 1809, "ly a fourth part had been surve.led. The sum expended for the survey of England was 780,0001.; for Ireland, 820,000/.; and for Scotland, only 66,000/. He trusted, therefore, the Go vernment would not oppose the Committee. Mr. FOX MAULE thought the Hon. Gentleman was Entitled to the thanks of the people of Scotland for tak ing up the question_ He gladly supported the motion for a Committee, and should be ready to give any assist , ance he could. After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE, The motion was agreed to. Viscount JOCELYN moved " That the Select Committee on steam communications i with ladis, &e., do consist of 17 Members. " That Mr. Bright be added to the Committee on steam communications with India, &c. _ _ "'Tat Mr. Elliott be discharged from attenclance on the Committee on steam communications with Indiq, r,,nd that Mr. Wilson be added."—Agreed to. The House then adjourned at r. Quarter gait Twelve o'clock. THE NEW BUDGET. FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. TPIES.—Sir Charles Wood cannot be L.Ned this year with yielding too large a compliance to public im portunity. His new BuOget is substaritial:y tho same as that which he hastened to give us in the third week of the session. He has announced the renewal of the in- come-tax, as yet without any modification, though, as he refers rather darkly to some detalis to be published neat Monday, it is possible we may find ourselves agree ably surprised on this point. The window-tax is once more condemned, but the proposed substitute is a con siderable improvement on that which before gave such general dissatisfaction. That was a complex scheme, the chief features of which were a reduction of the window tax on existing houses to two-thirds of its present amount, and five per cent. on the rental of new houses. Sir Charles now proposes a uniform tax of in the pound, or 31 per cent., on all dwelliag-houees, and Gd. in the pound on houses with shops, inns, farm-houses, and a.ll buildings of a semi-industrial, semi-residential character; houses of a rental under 201. a-year being exempted as before. As the agricultural interest does not appreciate the boons offered to it in the trans fer of half the charge for lunatics from the rates to the Consolidated 'C'unal, :sad in the reduction tion of the duties on foreign seed, Sir Charles he taken it at its word, and, contrary to his own estimate of these boons will CO longer press them. The remission of half the differential duty on foreign timber, and the reduc tion of the duties oa colonial and foreign coffee to a uni form rate of 3d. a pound, continuo parts of the Budget. We certainly did not expect that Sir Charles would dodge about looking for a Budget that would give uni• versal content. Such al one there does not exist in the world of possibilities; and a Chancellor of the Exche quer, like any other public man, is bound to stick to his plans with some pertinacity. That the new Budget will be popular we can hardly expect, for we cannot profess unqualified satisfaction with it ourselves. As to the new form of the house-tax, it certainly is much less objec tionable than the former. According to that plan, the inequalities of the existing window-tax were perpetuated, though the amount was somewhat reduced, and au old house full of windows which paid 151. a year with some hope of relief, was to bo saddled with a perpe tual burden of 10/. The commotion made by the proposal is too fresh for it to be necessary to mention mere objections. Sir Charles's new proposal will, we should think, satisfy all who will consent to a house-tax at all. In the cases of particular hardship, where the present window-tax amounts to 15 or 20, or even 30 per cent. on the rental, a tax of 34 per cent. will be felt as a trifling affair. The late outcry against a house-tax arose, as it seemed to us, ebiefly from a feeling of disap pointment that the window-tax was not to be repealed without a substitute. Apart from the disappointed ex peotations of Marylebone and Bath, there can be no valid objection alleged to a bouse-tax, for as a general rule a house is a very good measure of expenditure. We do not see why a man who occupies a house worth 1,0001. a year, perhaps several such houses, should not be taxed for these luxuries as well as the tea-drinker, the beer drinker, and the tobacco-smaher. The chief objection to a house-tax is one that has been little alluded to. It is that houses are heavily tuaiNl already. The property tax of 7d. in the pound on houses, the duty on fire assurance. the poor-rates and county-rates for public purposes, all mount up info a consiL:erable sum, varying from 10 to 20 per cent. on the rental. As the property-tax, however, will some day, we aro per suaded, be taken off our shoulders, and as the duty on assurances is far too iniquitous and impolitic to be per petual, the question of tt a house-tax" may be consi dered independsnt of them. The new farm of the house-tax will yield about 400,0001. less than that for merly propoeed, but the reluctance of the agriculturists to eccept the two boons offered by Sir Charles will en able him to he more liberal to householders than he at first intended to be. The income-tax will not be re- impoFel without a serious discussion—first, on the propriety of putting the notorious schedule D on a more equitable footing ; and, secondly, on the sort of nederstandine• ° upon which the nation consents to another lease for three years. Every year adds to the sense of injustice that pervades the com mercial and profe: , sional classes on the subject of a tax on purely industrial income, for every year multiplies examples of income-tax paid in part out of capital. We know of cases where nothing now remains out of professional incomes that have paid income. tax every year since 1842, and where the widows and orphans would feel it a very serious relief to receive back the income-tax paid in that period. We know camases where life assurances for the sa ke of large faili have reduced the net income so low that the income-tax was, in fact, 4 or 5 per cent. on small and precarious incomes. Still harder cases have coma to our know ledge where the income has been steadily declining during the whole of the nine years, till, through ili health or other circumstances, it totally_ ceased, while th e tax upon it was kept up at nearly the loriginal amount, and never ceased till the last payment kvas made by exe cutors out of a scanty fund. The gradual diminution of total income assessed to the tax is itself a proof either of growing dishonesty, which we cannot wholly believe, or of the ?act that payments in former years were exces sive. As to the perpetuity of the tax, now is the time to extract some pledge on that point. If, as is commonly alleged, the income-tax is to serve as a temporary fund for permanent relief to industry, let u 3 hear how far that is to go, and at what point the claims of working people with loss than 1501. a year are to be considered so far satisfied that working people with more than 1501. are no longer to be taxed for the sake of those below them. How much mor e i n di rect taxation i s to b e re d uce d , an d how many more Kafir wars to be paid, on the strength of the income-tax? These are the questions to come on next Monday, and the week should not be permitted to pass without some satisfaction upon them. HEIZALD.—" There is something towards a new great coat," said an Irishman when he hammered a nail into the wall of his cabin. " How much?" asked his wife. " Why, there's the nail to hang it on," was the response. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires is the new great coat. He has the nail—the income-tax! Give us an income-tax, and we can carry on the financial arrangements of the nation to the end of time. Dama ging, destructive, unpopular though the impost may be, it is still a marvellously-convenient revenue with which to carry through one of the most difficult jobs which a Whig Administration ever assigned to itself. L)olc at the Budget of last night. Of what is it composed? Why the Minister—however well inelined—ba? ,o t n ly e done a bit of petty larceny, when he might, " same amount of moral effrontery, have e orainTt l t t e'l the wholesale felony of stealing the batch of fiscal plans pro pounded by Lord Stanley, and approved of by the unani mous voice of the nation. This however, would not answer the purposes of the Government. The littleness of mere Whiggery sticks to them to the last. They have not the courage to do more than pilfer some odds and ends of the courageous and well-defined plan of the statesman who is about to direct the destinies of the nation, and v:ehave only to ask our readers, will they submit to the re-imposition of the income-tax for three years? The re s p onse i s in the mouth of every ma n who ajoys a reve nue o f mo re th an 1501. a year; and we have no doubt that the amend ment of Mr. Ferries, when proposed on Monday night, will meet with a general assent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer str might ik well say that in hi s ex p os itio n there was " nothing g —indeed, there was nothing in striking, save his knocking the nail upon the head, upon which ho bad notning new to haug. The exposition of t h e Right Hon. Gentleman is before the country. I.l:he .""r; -- rwifeT. question of the income-tax will be brought substantially 1 - wore the House of Cornmomi on Muuday night, and we have rtsson to believe that the result will achieve the of the nation—the dissolution of the Whig-Radi cal Ministry, and the advent to power of a Governalent able to serrimpiLli the demands of the British empir e . ADVERTISER,—Tire new edition of the Whig Budget waq published last night. We are much mis tllieu if it be not received by the country rvith nearly the same mingled emotions of disappointment and deri sion, as the first edition ushered into the world some wceiss ago. We see in it the satno little-mindness—the same financial incapacity—the same genius for bungling fiscal legislation, as that which characterised the Budget which the Right Hon. Gentleman brought before the public amid the jeers and laughter of the louse and the public, more than a month ago. The window-tax is at last to be givai up in name, but is to be retained, in a somewhat modified form, we admit, under the name of a tax on houses. " What's in a name?" What matters it to the payers of the impost, whether the collect - or calls for the money under the designation of a win dow, or of a house-tax? It will be just as incon venient and as oppsessive to pay the amount under _ the latter, as under the form - er designation. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer endea vour to retrieve, at least partially, his character as a financier, by sweeping away the obnoxious impost, root and branch—leaving not even a trace of it behind? But vve reproach ourselves for asking such a question. Sir Charles is a man of no mind. He has not the ca pacity to do anything which would command the com mendation of the country. Those provisions in the Whig Budget which rel a t e t o the re d uc ti on o f th e ti m b er an d coffee duties are to b e r e t a in e d, a s a t fi rs t p ro p ose d. rile only parts of his for mer sc h eme w hi c h th e Right Lion. Gentleman abandons entirely aro these which re lated to the reduction of the taxes on seeds and lunatic atylums. These he now proposes to retain. The an nounuincnt was received with laughter and jeers. And to it well might. It is r ea lly lamentable to see a man fining the . ornee of Chancellor of the Ex chequer, with matters of national thus gravely finance. " But worse remains behind." The income taxits enormities. The Plight igh is to Plight Hon.obe n. p d e e r p ut e i t t u ch at a e a d, with call ,sofromseeing anything in quisitorial, oppressive, or unjust in thi s i mpost, holds it up us a perfect model in its way. Ile proposes no modi deaden, no alteration, .any of its provi s i ons. I t i s true, he does not crown the nonchalance with w hi ch he speaks of this impost as the very perfection of taxes, by saying in so many words that he means to perpetuate it for an inciefinite period; but there can be no question whatever that such is his intention. It LOW rem a i ns for the country to have its say on the subject. The financial oracle of Downing-street has spoken. . voico has been heard in Parliament, and reach the ears of the entire nation before forty-eight hours have elapsed. It i s f or th e nat i on now to s p ea k. It is right (hat its voice should be also heart, and heard forthwith. Are the myriads of persons who are the victims of this iaiqutous tax, to submit tamely to its re-imposition? It will be their own Inuit if they do. They have only to raise their voices against the monstrous meditated in justice, and Loth the Budget and its bungling author will be utterly swept away —never more to re-appear on the financial stage. CHRONICLE.—The Chancellor cf the Exchequer had not an easy task last night, and it is not wonderful if he accomplished it with but moderate success. The great change in the Budget consists in the substitution of a house-tax for the modified window-tax which wee originally proposed. The alterations of the coffee and timeer duties are to be the same which were announced two months ago; but the abolition of the duty on seeds, eed the transference of certain charges for lunatic asylums from the ceunty rate to the Consolidated Fund, are struck out of the amended Budget. We regret the levity with which Sir Charles Wood announced his reasons for these comparatively unimportant changes. He had met with no gratitude, he said, for his original proposals on there two points, end therefore he assumed that those concerned attached no value to the relief which was offered thorn. Yet the plan was originally either just or unitise The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely did not look for extravagant gratitude for a boon of 130,000/. a yeer, divided among the landed interest of the country; and whatever reasons existed for the offer two months ago continue to the present moment with undiminished force. But in the rceanduae Lord Stanley has become a pro fessed candidate for office, and there is no longer any use in attempting to buy the votes of the Country Party. Mr. 'Terries' rt?solutions on Monday would not be with drown for the sake of bringing in seeds duty free. These ore not the reasons which would influence a wise and grave finale:lel Minister. Sir Robert Peel never sought to buy utf opposition by the repeal of some petty impost on a special interest. Ile knew that such en attempt could not succeed—and he would not have done it if he could. By deelaiming against protective duties and the sponge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that he had met all the objections which were so universally raised against his first tentative Budget. And yet all the terioue objections with which it was mat had equally little to do with Protection and with repudiation. He came nearer the truth when he complained that his op ponents had raid that his scheme contained no principle whatever. having often veatured to make some remark of the kind, we confess that we are not satisfied with. the answer. My principle, says Sir Charles Wood, is to look principally to the interests of the labouring masses; and, provided we cheapen the primary necessaries of life, we may he indifferent to the reciamations of property. But we never said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was incapable of enunciating a principle; we only complained that his notorious Budget involved no such element. The labouring classes can only be relieved by the removal or reduction of that indirect taxation of which they pay so disproportionate a share. When we turn from Sir Charles Wood's speech to his Budget, we find that just 400,0001. is the sum devoted to the carrying out of this vital principle. With a surplus of 1,900,0001., some what more than a fifth part is applied to the purpose which five-sixths of the Minister's speech is meant to recommend, if it means anything. We cannot hesitate to approve the refusal of the Minister to squander the whole amount of the surplus on the removal of direct taxes on property. He has gone as fur as was justi fiable, and perhaps even farther, in the amount to which he has reduced the tax on dwellings. The relief, as he says, is not equal; nor would it be easy, by any just change, to mitigate an unequal tax in an equal ratio. The new house-tax will, in a few cases, increase the burden—but only where it ought to be in creased. Even if Belgrave-square should have to pay 10/ more than at present, few will he the un fashionable mourners for the new afflictions of Bel gravia. Tines is, however, one feature in the house-tax which makes it unjust, and which we warn Sir Charles Wood will eventually render it untenable. The exemption of houses below 201. a year is no boon whatever to the labouring classes. Whatever is taken off the direct charge on a house, is inevitably added to the rent. A house of 20/. a year. with 15s. of house-fax, will let, in the event of being exempt rd from the duty, for exactly 20/. 15s. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasts that three millions of houses will pay no duty whatever, the proposal wnich he makes for continuing a oc of direct taxation. Why should fifteen-se he u tterly condemnstan j y v b e tn ut arbitro Five" hundred house u e s et the the am :awe; the lawise Property of the d e a "s y s ear of email house i ' v ' r a n i i l u o ,. ttele than large ate rental in or oven exemption? Small houses k a i r a e g l d e o sT Oar , !; hut the owners . are not t n pro bably, poorer. b productive th e a e t x i; and th Property Belgravia. ought abundantlymight furnish t r il e e n ‘ m je e r n i u. t :/ ° )frelieving the springy of elastic I there are now 4:00,000 houses ear, r e d c ira an in a i s s m Sir h a Charles large year teem the adoption of his proposi swohuirechespyf ta'nereantitor.ci,nuirn2re. ra Will 2 0/. is the minimum of taxable rent, proposi tion. good h‘ t h %r a hi t et t i h n e 2 g o/. 19 3 . will become a common value of houses. In justice will necessarily loud to contrivauces to imitate it and to evade the burdens which it imposes. The Mi nister enthely misconstrues Mr. Mill. An impartial house-tex is an impost on income—in its exceptional form it is a burden on a certain hind of house-property. This single error will be found hereafter to vitiate the whole scheme of the new house-tax, which otherwise would obtain approbation, and which, as compared with the window -tax, is even now entitled to support. As against Lord Stanley's schemes, the Ministerial policy mutt, with all its faults, be defended. It is bad enough to do nothing in support of sound principles; but ,it is worse to deny and renounce them. The issue to beten- . ten dered to the House of Commons on Monday is th a ta of justice or injustice—progress or decay property or of industry. We cannot decay—taxation ga le t the majority will agree with Lord Robert Grosvenor in the poor to reject the burdens upon the rich, o h poor man pays twenty times the, per -tentage , m te i s . his tobacco, end his beer. DAILY NEWS.— rhe Chancel a l h or dw o i r ll has at least simplified his Budget, lion and a quarter which he gives up Exchequervery will still quarter, s sensible pecuniary relief in any ino3E clamorous of com silence in some measure the of old-fashioned plainants. Whether the oselr e i edifices in towns which coun try houses, or of those fo l r a m g that class . of the comma happen to contain shops' nity which most require d e doubt •alleviation in the way of taxes, one may be inclined CO but Sir Charles Wood by his first Budget had Bung the country into such a slough of embarrassment and despond, that any mode of extri cation was likely to be welcomed and accepted. If the Chancellor's gadget was somewhat better digested than his previous one, so was his speech. It had warmth in it ; and the wan , being an amiable person, appeared to advantag e, makin g an effort to vindicate his plans and repaired shattered reputation. In this he partially c with the House, which received his appal with indulgence and even with favour. And yet that s peech does not impress us with any higher idea of Big Charles Wood's capacity as a financier. His theories were often erroneous, his eloquence, or what he intended to ho such, was clap-trap, and his admissions highly imprue dent. And we strongly counsel the Whigs to take ad• vantage of Sir Charles Wood's little gleam of success, to remove him to some less responsible office,be a tt n er Chan they can, amongst them, or beyond them, a prefaced the cellor of the Exchequer. Sir Charles pr finatrcial items of his new Budget by expatiating on the prosperity of the country, and upo n the his demands. andincreased s. He et the tax-payers to aans were ; r h and in the character depicted the income-tax as a tiie of a gentleman of 5 , 000 /. a y ear i he declared that 150/ it. income-tax was a smal l eon t bution. We -tax of a struggling admit man But the 301. incomeend .14ea yn ition e of business, or earner of , 07 sno tr eat, i add to som y ifle. We deny utterl 60/. or 70/. of other taxes , m s' that the country, token man by men, is better able to pay there taxes than ke it vies ten years ego. We denythat capital produces the Earn° retarus, that person exertions command the same income , that s p ecul ation irt commerce or investments in manufactures produce thee same or enYt}nee-like the same results. Sir Charles Woad sage, if t bi g bl the case, then free trade is a failure. A foolifh 94°14310U this to make to afoe. Lle shouldoga, I