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

NNW' oat of the ;R—lt what t" 0 for tP e snot V I P ily be ut ble to for 1 " - , duration 3f the de' meao9 iu e broug ht to thr°,., vl d the "-; n y to t . " f na tion 0 t leas to e sure tl3 a nd w e ° to SUN, " toyseif in a position in which I might be reduced to the necessity of borrowing money to meet this claim in . the event of its being established. And now, before stating niy reasons for adhering to my proposal respecting the t income-tax, I will briefly advert to the motion of whichhe the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Ur. 'Terries) has given not i ce. I look upon the Right. Hoe. Gentleman's p ro position es the first step in the direction of the policy Which Lord Stanley has announced. It is duo to the Bight Ho n . Gentleman to state that he has brought for his• d proposition in the fairest possible manner. The ltight a nn . Gentleman proposes to reduce the property tax, but not to an extent which would be inconsistent with the maintenance of national faith, and up - in that point, of course, I know I could rely on the Right Hon. Gentleman. If the tax is to be reduced, a portion should be reduced at once, and I admit, also, that if the policy ir .to which I h ave a d verte d i s t o b e pursued, the Right zi en• Gentl eman ' s propos i t i on i s n e cess arily the first Step to be taken. There is, however, this difference be tweet us—that I think the policy wrong. I admit that the property -tax was first imposed for a temporary pur- Pese--that of meeting a deficiency—and that the tem -11°417 purpose was accomplished. But in 1845 the tax Was renewed for a different purpose.—(Hear, from the 9PPosition.) It was renewed for the purpose of enabling th e Rouse to make an improvement in financial legisla t,i,°:a by removing impolitic restrictions ; ley reducing the I ,, r ,'?e of articles of consumption, and repealing duties ;'uleb checked and retarded the development of indus- W e ' at l ex w te il t l a, furiher admit that those objects have, tots remain , been accomplished also. But there still other objects to be accomplished, such as those which v uieb I have detailed to the Committee to-night, an cannot, consistently with the policy I approve of, propose se h the repeal of the property-tax until these objects 11 have been accomplished. I admit freely that any mute- Mal reduction of the income-tax ought to be followed b y its final extinction. Nothing is, so impolitic as a until reduction of a tax. I do not think that the in ce- tax presses h eav ily on those who pay it. I cannot k that to a man having an income of 5,0001. a year why her deri ve d f rom l an d or a profession—the pay elelet of 1 50/. a nnua ll y for the security with which he 1;1°3'8 his income is a heavy tax. Doubtless, this tax is ?Peu to ebj ect i on on account of its i nquis i tor i a l nature, but that objectio n a p p l ies as much to a tax of a penny ax let us a t sto one of a s hi lling- If we are to h ave an income at least fix it at an amount which will enable 1111 to derive benefit from it. My belief is that if we Were to make the proposed change now, no long tiuse would elapse betore the tax would be renewed, and „ w and then we sh ou ld b e i n t h e same pos iti on i n which e a re now. Th e quest i on i s , s h a ll we repeal the inc ome - tax, or shall we get rid of objeetioneble Imposts? L et me direct the attention of the House to What has taken place during the last few years. Take t he year w h en the income-tax f i rst came i nto f u ll opera tion, and last year,—that is to say, the year ending the st h Of April, 1844, and that ending the sth of April l a a i st. In th e y ear en di ng t h e st h o f A pr il, 1844, the or nary revenue from Customs, Excise, Stamps, and T axes, was 45,593,0001. Between that time and last year : uPwards of 7,000,000/. of taxes have been repealed; yet last year the ordinary revenue from Customs, Excise, Stamps, and Taxes, was a little more than that in 1844, namely, 45,662,0001.—(Hear, hear.) Seven millions of taxes have been repealed under the pressure of the in eotne-tax, and yet the ordinary revenue remains at the same amount. With this proof before us of the elasticity Of our trade and industrial resources—with this evidence that the income-tax does not press very heavily upon us --I am justified in believing that, if we remove objection able taxes, we shall before long be again in the same position in which we are • now with respect to revenue, while we shall have had the gratification of freeing trade from its fetters, enlarging com ansrce, and—what I hold to be of even greater import !floe—improving the condition and augmenting the com forts of the great body of the people.—(Hear, hear.) I will not a nt i c i pate the discussion that will take place on Monday respectin g the income-tax. I have stated what my e Pro posals are viz., the reduction of duty on one gr r at' articl e of consumption—the reduction of duty on in to n2ate rial, and extens i ve re li e f to h ouse h o ld ers b o th lieve wn to fort of and country. These are measures which I be e es sentially necessary to the welfare and cone the people. The proposal of the Right Hon. 'Gentl Wh , e m an opposite, on th e contrary, is to reduce a tax r_ "se at any rate, presses only on those who have ade tt.e means t o pay it, and the repeal of which would Rer impossible the execu ti o n of any of the . sures w hi ch I propos e.—(lieur, hear.) Should the might Honourable Gentleman's proposal be adopted, the r as s of the Population cannot for a long period be re rtese.d from the imposts which press upon them. I must the House, too, that the Riht Honourable Gen themall' proposal is coupled, not by him indeed, but by togreat party with which he is connected, with a sug polled imposition of duty on foreign corn. If that pr o eY b e' fully carried out, not only will the benefits we t a; __P°se te confer on the labouring man be withheld from I '' , but he will be deprived of those he already enjoys. ii:nuot sufficiently deprecate the results which would e from such legislation. I have on many recent on trens attached, and I still attach, more importance to 8 political than the commercial results that would er fro m a reversal of the legislation which has taken R IF () for the benefit of the population of this country. I oar e 'ere it to be essential to the stabiiity and well-being of t institutions that the people should be contented and eif, t is P e PY• lam of opinion that if the people feel that ties are the objects of our solicitude—that the improve• which of their material and moral condition is a matter r . e z ti c h gr t e h te e feii Legislature has at heart—they will re- Y attached to the Constitution.—(Hear, great I believe that, under such circumstances, the " 4 mass of the l oyalty as peopl e will continue as firm in their ,it a d .they vivre three years ago, and that—notwith ° Ine the a pprehensi, , ns which seem to have taken Lressinu of the minds of some Hon. lelembers—we w _ bid defiance to those outbursts of popular fury which ' a short time since overpressed a large portion of (The Ri g h t eof which were quenched in blood.— Uon r especti • Gentleman, after moving the resolu loud cheers )ng the income - tax, res umed his seat amidst That CHAIR MAN read the resolution as follows: Itait t i 2e towards rai s i ng the supply grante d t o h er Ma respective d ut i es i n G reat B r it a in on pr o fit s and t• ril! from prop erty, professions, tra d es, an d o ffi ces, is suiss e stamp duties in Ireland granted by two Acts Whie in the s i xt h year of her present Majesty, and All b s n have been cont i nued and amen d e d by severa l r ec itlent Acts, shall be fu r th er continued for a time to united." BERRIES expressed his astonishment at the —". ll ae taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after ilest_ occurred in the House last night. An understand isegv„WB3 Coale to last night, that his ( Nfr. Herries's) pr?- the "!, 0 11 should be postponed to Monday, and yet, in the;_ace of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had aed not only his proposition, but the policy of th e Party opposed to him, not with reference to 4f,, proprty-tax, but generally. (Hear, hear.) Could what had occurred, he deeply regretted that he 31 1 not bring his proposition before the House until zerday, Be would not be led into a discussion with 40 Pect to the policy of the party on his side of the Chanceu but this he could not avoid saying, that the bllor of the Exchequer's Budget, and the speech stSehich it was introduced, clearly showed that it was in tention that the income t ax s ho u ld b e pe r petual.— il ti (l ts ed cheer s .) H e was provoked to refer to what the ta! mt lion. Gentleman had stated upon the renewal of to d P r ePerty tax in 1845, when he (Mr. Herries) con n th ai l? In Opposition to the Right Hon. Gentleman, e t a H. Peel did then legitimately continue that tax th e r the conditions which had induced the House in , s _e *at instance to grant it. Sir R. Peel, when he pro posed its renewal, reminded them that he had originaily riet t intr oduced it under the belief that if they found the sures which he proposed at the same time should Let h„ e accomplish e d all th e i r p ur p ose , th e y w ould em ir' the p er i o d during which that tax should continue. th tla e e eg Other things, Sir R. Peel stated tbat he believed 0 , Property tax would press mainly upon the rich, and t i e " uPen the poor. But what said the Right Hon. Gen clean upon that occasion:- - Two grounds have been stated which had led very 1 1 euts e h to acquiescence in the tax. One was, that it was il „Lat. which pressed exclusively on the rich, and took deductions from the employment of artizans. So far 1, 11 1 its b e i ng a tax which pressed exclusively on the 1, ,: e n, he beli eve d t h at i t pressed on the labouring popule "on by diminishing the means of giving them employ tient. But he did not believe that the Right Hon. Gen tleman himself could think that it was a tax which e re exclusively up on the rich; because, if he did, why he not impose it in Ireland?" SDid the Right Hon. Gentleman still maintain that Pinion? If not, why did not he extend it to Ireland?— n ar, hear.) Bat th e R ight Hon. Gentleman gave ao , dart the r reason for opposin g the tax. Speaking of the g„" Of the tax becoming perp etua l , he said: t he .question thi ' Jae thought it would be righ t t h at they should have fairly and fully discussed, namely, whether of ray: est" ' tax was to be regarded as a permanent source ll its hue? Let it be discussed on i ts own mer i ts—on int "n grOund— but let ns not be le on step by step t i e ° a coars e from which it would be ampossible after a ie to extricate ourselves." groat shouldashe was his (Mr. Herries's) op ini on , and u ,„ 13°8 ,e on Monday next to show such re h e i;:gltt would be sufficient to induce the House to pause the-„r`2,,heY this. this tax unavoidably perpetual; for if fillin g the first legitimate opportunity of f e l_ to los: the engagements of Parliament with respect to it, Would ever man could be so foolish as to believe that it nfth . be removed from the shoulders of the people act, 13 , co untry.—(Hear.) He could not sit down without in ring to some of the topics that had been and I s i s , e speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, tiblateecer- D a m l had marvelled much at the course that e had With and the nature of his arguments. Setting on . b a t h t ete Principle, first and foremost, that it was esseh er edi ? Preserve a surplus in order to maintain the public.. snr, tbto Provide amply for the public service, and to in c ee 4 o Public against possible contingencies, he pro to a su to abandon r evenue unt il h e reduced hi s surplus con s h it i n not exceeding 300,0001. or 400,000/. Such in of paellae (Mr. Hurries) had never heard in the course and la loe. mentary career. Was that fulfilling the high set a e i ,tY yretensions which the Right Hon Gentleman sech 1', 0 4 it was the very reverse of all that, and, if '4l e ra to be his course of proceeding, he might, east, h ave spared his eulogium upon the policy of Gc,ntie'ent charaeter.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. °f Lo r a had very unnecessarily introduced the policy With ts °tattley int ) his speech. What had that to do keno ue question? He (Mr. Berries) hoped that on 1 /ith s a Y he should be able to discuss the income-tax ti p all involving questions of the corn duty or if I; and z It was purely an economical and fiscal ques tho, he hoped to be able to show to the HOW° that all h4 n `lesired to administer fairly, usefully, and above es tlY) the financial affairs of this country, they l'rop er oid the renewal upon insufficient grounds of the hats'l‘ttla max.—(Flear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle ast • -st b , onished him by his boldness, and more esp .'the very little fooling he seemed to have bad THE for ex-Chancellors of the Exthe.quer woo administered the affairs of the country when Lord Melbourne was in office. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think very lightly of the unfortunate events which preceded the advent 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 most 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 wondered 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 cation had been forgotten.—(Hear, hear.) It would seem as if he thought they had forgotten the proposition for a double income-tax—(hear, 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 expenditure so as to render sufficient that which the House of Commons would give. —(Hoar, hear.) What was it that had occasioned the difficulties and em barrassments in which the Right Hon. Gentleman at that time found himself—what but that unwarrantable aug mentation of expenditure which bad taken place under that Government when the navy, army, and ordnance were increased 3,000,000/. above what they had stood at for some years, aided by the dissolation and ruin that had been scattered over the whole mercantilecommunity by the umfortunate Currency Act? That was the case iu 1848, when the income-tax was last renewed. He (Mr. Herries) voted for that renewal, and he did so most consien tinualy, 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. fie hoped that on Nionday next they would make a beginning of the end of that tax.—(Hear, hear.) Lord R. GROSVENOR had never jo ined his friends in their opposition to the income-tax, for he had always considered it desiraale that we should have more direct taxation than we had.—(Haar, hear.) Nothing would give him greater satisfaction 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 an d 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 certainly much surprised at the outburst of in dignation from the metropolis when the Right Honour able Gentleman spoke of a house-tax in place of the window-tax, because he believed it to be a very proper substitute. The Right lion. Gentleman had stated that 150/. per annum was not a large sum for a man with 5,0001. 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 working classes did not pay one 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 he might almost say it was entirely extinct.—(Hear, 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 ho (Lord R. 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 teat when the former Budget was proposed he had objected to paying 1,000,0001. 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 2,500,000/., although the Right Honourable Gentleman had 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 ho 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, for the purpose of paying off the national debt, one fourth part of the sur plus of any one year must be appropriated to the reduc tion of that debt.—(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 1,000,0001. a year towards paying off the national debt relieve the poor man? [An Hon. MEMBER—Yes, by reducing the interest.] If he would remove the soap-tax he would benefit the working man ten times more.—(Hear, hear.) While there was a tax on soap, on paper, on ads vertisments, on newspapers, he was prepared to solve cate their repeal in preference to paying off the capital of the debt. He was prepared to nsaintain 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. ferries), 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 . had no right to complain. Ile 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 housettax while so large en amount was to go towards paying off the capital of the national debt. He would rather pay 7 per cent. income-tax than see au 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 113 American paper. The removal of the window-tax, in a sanitary point of view, was praiseworthy. He could not oppose the income-tax; and he should conclude by repeating 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. TRELAWNY reminded the House that he had proposed to appropriated 2,000,000/. towards the extinc tion of the national debt. Many would think the prosi tioa Quixotic; but he 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 demands 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 oughtto be made. Was it the objtct of Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to impose perpe tual duties on corn, as the Right Hon. Member for Stain 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 him on the ground that it was his intention to follow in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel. Sir R. Peel bad 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 fieit 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 one word in favour of a continuance of thip taxation beyond the three years; I don't think the House will agree that the income and property-tax, as now itn 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 10,000,0001. 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 graduated scale might be intro duced. Bat he wished rather to call attention to the c ik e ne ra b t . i n on ke o r f a, th m e e t r a c x h on the owners and occupiers of land. annual YBhnould they not have the privilege of returning the t e i t t uproduce of their receipts, and paying on that, w a n e n t r s , of Imaraneufaecsttuarteerson? the One westo f I Co is as c t ° o n f s- Scutiand, had, for the last g four or five yew's. paid income tax on a rental of not less than 4,0001. or 5,000/. a-year. In a memorial to the Treasury he stated that he had not received 6d. of income from that pro party,aladrivvaantcee r d e s l o o u r r c t else. support r, t h tf ea t r h . e ) people b l u ,o t o ta . t fr h o e in h h a i a s chat was an injustice which surely might be remedied if the tax was t o be p ermanent . 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. Re had no objection that the tax should be permanent, or even increased, but it ought to be properly adjusted. Mr. W. WILLIAMS thou g ht the Chan cellor of the Exchequer had now pla ced the house -tax on a r ational principle. There was, however, no, im posing a house-tax at all, and he shou ld necessity for 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 pointed to a different conclusion. Taking the five years from 1822 to 1826, during which a large amount of taxation was removed, the falling off in tLe revenue from what remained was equal to ono tuird of the amount - of the taxation reduced. So in 11 years from 1830 to 1840 the taxes reduced were 8.600,000/., 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 IS4I, the year previous to the year of reductions. He van• turgid to predict that the actual tailing 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 be said was, ho hoped the metropolitan Members had come to their senses.—(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 him (Lord Robert Grosvenor) to that House, and who never had returned any man who had sacrificed his independenne. 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. He could not concur with the Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex in saying that the present pro position was the same with that made on a firmer 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 500,0001. a-year more than by the former plan was to be given. The country were much indebted to his Right Hon. Friend and the metropolitan Members who bad been so much censured; and, without pledging himselt to support the plan now proposed, he wished to express his opinion that it was a great improvement on the former. , . Sir E. HALL, as one of the metropolitan Members who had lately been " out of their senses," reminded his Noble Friend that be might rather have said it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been out of his mind, tor the metropolitan Members had not changed theirs. He recollected a remarkable speech made by the Hoff Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, when out of office, with reference to the income-tax, and there was a general impression, when that Hon. Gentleman took office, that it was almost a guarantee t h a t there would be a different arrangement with regard to that tax. 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 surprised that any persons at that meeting should have been, as he said, favourable to a breach of good faith with the public creditor. He did not know to what particular meeting the Right Hon. Gentleman referred. There had been a number of meetings in the metropolis, but he knew of no individuals who 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. —(Hear.) 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 effect 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 out 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 74)0,0001., 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 make any modifications as far as life interests and professional incomes were concerned—and for what period he intended 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 ho should be ready to discuss ell 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, he 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 eumption, and about the two kinds of direct taxation which he meant to preserve—the window-tax and the income-tax. He called upon the House, 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 in an entire want of eurplus.—( 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 !),—and the other was whether they should follow the course recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) lie hoped the surplus would be increased by means of a reduction in the public expenditure. The proposal of the Hon. Member for Stamford as to the income-tax was the most dangerous that could be merle. He (Mr. Macgregor) was fecontioning 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 artizan with a wife and two children, and earning 751. a-year, paid of taxes on necessary articles of food for his family 7L Bs., or 10 per cent. of his income. Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked whether warehouses, manufactories, banking-houses, and other places used 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, 3501. of rent, of which 591. was for the dwelling house, to be called on to pay on the rent of his shop, viz. on 300/., 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 en 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-ball of the sum of 150/. 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 merle 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 sinee we had 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 years 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 greet improvement on his former scheme. He hoped, however, 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, b e wished to see modifications introduced with respect to the income-tax. Mr. STANFORD said, it appeared to him that some Hon. 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 EVENING, APRIL teas should be maintained in Office or not. But that was a principle on which it was iraposaible the legislation of this country could bo satisfactorily conducted. The Members for the metropolis hal 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 Hen. Baronet the Mem ber for Marylebono exprass his approbation of the men• sure brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exche quer, and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Westmin ster had also declared his unqualifiad approval of it; but he bad not yet heard the Hun. 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 Ia 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 cf the metro polis. If the Eight Honourattle Gentleman had had the courage to resist those geutlemen 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 incoma.-tax. But the Right Hon. Gentleman yielded to a metropolitan agitation, and was therefore compelled to retain that tax in its present most objec tionable sham?. Mr. WAKLEY said, that if the lion. Member felt dis satisfied with the shopkeepers of the metropolis, he (Mr. Waltley) must express himself very much dissatia fled with the shopkeepers of Reading.—(Cheers and laughter.) Did the Hon. Gentleman think it wrong for the people to agitate when they considered there were public abwes to redress? (Ur. STANaomi, "No.") Then why complain? It was quite clear they had an im proved Budget in consequence of agitation on the part of the Right lion. Gentleman'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 auger. In the Budget there was very little that was new, though that which was new 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 ho 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. Gentleman might be assured that his speech of that night would be received by them with a sentiment of respect and feelings of admiration. The Right Hon. Gentleman had become convinced that the msiltitude must be legislated for, and not 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 best 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 demanded 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 lion. Gentle man would reconsider his proposition with regard to the income-tax. The tax operated 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 who 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 on 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 te at 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 Right Hon. Gentleman was to make a great speech in support of public credit, and do little or no thing besides to support it.—(Laughter, and hear.) He (Mr. Baring) agreed on that point with the Hoe. 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 lion. 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 o 5 general use; and yet he only intended to repeal the window- tax, which pressed upon no more than 400,000 houses is the whole country. 'flits was not relief to toe 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, ho 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 taxation. He (Mr. 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. lie 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.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle man, however, felt 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 therefore to be obliged to aacritice their own convictions to the pressure from without; and the result would be, that if there was any sudden check to the national preiperity—such as war, or that bill of the India Company which had been al luded to as waiting to be paid—ahe country would be 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 llon. Member had ex pressed a great deal of indignation at the course pro posed to be taken by his Right lion. Friend. The course proposed by his Right lion. 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 Hon. Gentleman. What, however, did the Govern ment propose? They proposed in the present year to have some 900,000/. surplus to meet all demands. If no aPeration 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 end in the succeeding years there would most probably bo 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.—(Herr, 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 90,00OL—(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 follow in the wake of that Government and to support that Minister who laid 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, hear, and laughter) —and instead of being aware that he was speaking in tke House of Commons on a matter of figures—which his was well able to deal with—hal forgotten what took place in 1845; and deeming the present an occasion for a display of after-dinner eloquence—(Hear, laughter, and cries of " Ori")—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 far the advancement of a great principle.—(Hear.) Mr. DISRAELI said all the best speeches in the House of Commons were after-dinner epeeehes—(Hcnr, 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 Fine - mu had told the House that the pre sent Budget was not one bit better than that which the Hon. Member had previously condemned, hut that its badness was made up for by the speech which introduced it.—(hear, brighter, anal 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 Governmept gave good speeches.—(Laughter.) This reminded hith (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. --(Laughter and cheers.) Tile country was, therefore, at this moment governed by a Ministry who depended on their speeches and not on their measures.—(lfear,. and laughter.) He (Hr. Disr a eli) th oug ht the speech of the lion. Member for Huntingdon a very good spescb. The Noble Lord, however, thought differently, for what cause he (Mr. Disraeli) could not say. But ho could not agree that there was any analogy, as drawn by the Noble Lord between the present caseand the surplus left by the late Sir R. Peel. The Government of Sir H. Peel was a strong Government, for inetance, at that period.—(Hesr.) 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 R. Peel was supported on that occasion by a strong party, and therefore :the Minister might make any ar rangements he saw fin to make; but the Noble Lord was not in the same position, for he had only a large surplus, with a small party.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But there were other circumstances which made the two cases still less analagous. The speech of Sir R. Peel, when he hsd that surplus of 90,000,000/.—(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 boastfal anticipa tions of a surplus, nor with explanations of his improved mode of administering the finances of the counter. — (Hear, hear.) 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 900,0001. 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 bo the surplus then ? What was that claim ? When was it made ? The CHANCELLOR of th© EXCHEQUER—Yes ,erday.7(Llughtor.) „ Mr. DISRA ELI—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. Ile (Mr. Disraeli) could not recollect a single 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 Hen. 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.) Ho 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 thc 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 tho 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 eo 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 chsss was in a state of sufferint•;, 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 ho 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-oat 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 manceavres—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 subesitted by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It might be humiliating for a Whig Government to be able only to make good speeches and propose bad measures, as the Ron. 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 as had been admitted by its chief.—(oll.) Tho Noble Lord then pronounced a eulogium ou 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 this 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 was impossible to describe the amount of distress and suffering which had been occasioned. Ile had re ceived upwards of sixty leans on the subject, and he could assure the house if they were read they would prove that the agricultural interest in that district w as nearly ruined. It was impossible this state of things could go on without that part of the country being re duced to ss bad or even a worse state than was Ireland. Mr. WAWN argued that the changes in our naviga tion-laws had 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. Ile was satisfied, looking at the cost of iron and shipbuilding materials, that with fair play we could build ships co as to compete advantageously with any other country in the world. Even before the reduction of duty on 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 tha various dockyards, but, taking the port of Londo❑ 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 those of foreign nations. It was not the proper time for . going into this ciscus sion, otherwise he should have no difficulty in proving his case. Mr. WAWN said ho 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 ego. The reason why the Right Hon. Gentle man did not do so was because he wanted to smuggle 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 trusted that the friends of the manufacturing interest would sustain the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any opposition that might bo brought against his financial scheme from the other side of the House. The friends of the poor and the working c l asses were bound to support the Government on the present occasion; for the real question at issue was whether the taxation of the country should, in the main, be paid by the; rich or out of the br ead .of the poor and the sources of their employment. Mr. ALCOC!( Saw no great benefit to the agricultu ral interest likely to arise from tho amended Budget, though on the whole it would be more satisfactory to the public at large than his previous scheme. As regarded the income-V.lx he approved of the principle on which it was based; though of its details he must say that, so far as they e ffected the tenant farmer s , they were mese arhi : trary and unfair. The abolition of the income-tax would of necess ity render perpetual the malt-tax, and ho trusted therefore that the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire (me. would not lend himself to such a fallacy. Mr. G. HU l)SON, in reference to some observations which had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade, directed attention to a petition which he had presented from the ship builders and owners of Sunder land, complaining of great distress in their trace, and he called upon the Government to abolish the timber duty altogether instead of partially, as proposed in the Budget. Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to state ono single fact in answer to the Hon, Member, and it was this, that 5, 1851. during the pact year tu)re, and larger, and better ships had been built at Sun 4 crland than had ever been built since Sunderland was a shipping port.—(!leas.) Mr. lILTDSON admitted that, but said it did not fol low that the trade was therefore prosperous.—(Oh.) Ile himsrlf had been ltrgely eig,aged in trade. and had gone on for years making no profits at all. E.itablishments could not be broken up all at once. Mr. HEYWORTH said that the true policy for the landed interest to pursue, was to give every facility fur the extension of trade and commerce. Hon. Members had talked of repudiating the national debt. If it ever should be repudiated, it would be from the contiuusnee 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, 1 7,556,000 L was voted to be raised by Exchequer-bills, for the service of the, year 1851. Report to be received on Monday. The Eleuse then resumed. ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ACT (REPEAL) SILT.. On the motion of Mr. J. STUARf, the House went into Committee on this BAL. After a few word s fr om M r . STANFORD, _ _ _ Sir J. ROIIILLY 6ug, , , , ,estecltit a clause should be introduced to prevent the Bills an:l Acts which had been drawn up this session being affected by the present measure. Mr. J. STUART had no objection to bring up such a clauie on the report. Mr. F. MAULE said that that very day two important Bills had been sent to the Lords drawn up in conformity with the Act, and some such clause as that proposed was necessary to prevent them bring affected by this measure. The l3dl then went through the Committee. Report on Monday. Oa the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS, the following Com mittee on Expiring Laws was appointod:—Mr. C. Lewis, Mr. Hayter, the Attorney- General, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Parker, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Hume, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. B,llew, 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. He 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 1609, only a fourth part had been surveyed. The sum expended for the survey of Eugland was 780,0001.; for Ireland, 820,0001.; and for Scotland, only 66,0001. Ho 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 trk ing up the question. He gladly supp o rted the motion i 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 ou steam communications with India, &c., do consist of 17 Members. " That Mr. Bright be added to the Committee on steam communications with India, &e. . - "That Mr. Elliott ho discharged from attendance on the Committee on steam communications with Indio, &c., and that Mr. Wilson be added."—Agreed to. The House then adjourned at n Quarter past Twelve o'clock. THE NEW BUDGET. eltom THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. TIMES.—Sir Charles Wobd cannot be taxed this year with yielding too large a compliance to public im portunity. His new Budget is substantially the 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 details to be published next 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 ou 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 9d. in the pound, or 3 per cent., on all dwelling-houses, and 6d. in the pound on houses with shops, inns, farm-houses, and all 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 .Fund, and in the reduction tion of the duties on foreign seed, Sir Charles has taken it at its word, and, contrary to his own estimate of these boons, will no longer press them. The remission of half the differential duty on foreign timber, and the reduc tion of the duties on 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 unie vernal content. Such ai ono 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 °Nee- tionable than the former. According to that plan, the inequalities of the existing window-tax were perpetuated, though the amount was somewhat reduced, and an olti house full of windows which paid 151. a year with some hope of relief, was to be 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-tex arose, as it seemed to us, chiefly from a feeling of disap pointment that the window-tax was not to be repealed without a substitute. Apart from the disappointed ex pectations of Marylebone and Bath, there can be uo valid objection alleged to a house-tax, for as a general rule a house is a very good measure of expenditure. We do not sue why a man who occupies a house worth 1,0001. a year, perhaps several such houses, should not be taxed for those luxuries as well as the tea-drinker, the beer drinker, and the tobacco-smoker. The chief objection to a house-tax is one that has been little alluded to. It is that houses are heavily taxed already. The property tax of 7d. in the pound on houses, the duty on lire assurance, the poor-rates and county-rates for public purposes, all mount up into a considerable sum, varying from 10 to 20 per cont. on the rental. As the property-tax, however, will some day, we are per suaded, be taleen off our shoulders, and as the duty on assurances is far too iniquitous and impolitic to be per petual, the question of " a house-tax" may be consi dered independent of them. The new form of the house-tax will yield about 400,000/. less than that for merly proposed, but the reluctance of the agriculturists to accept the two boons offered by Sir Charles will en able him to be more liberal to householders then he at first intended to be. The income-tax will not be re imposed without a serious discussion—first, on the propriety of putting the notorious schedule on a more equitable footing ; and, secondly, on the sort of understanding 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 professional 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 of cases where life assurances for the sake of larg e families 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 comp to our know ledge where the income has been steadily declining during the whole of the nine years, till, through Hi!. health or other circumstances, it totally ceased, while the tax upon it was kept up at nearly the original amount, and never ceased till the last payment was made by exe cutors oat 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 fact that payments in former years were exces sive. As to the perpetuity of the tax, now is the time to extract some pledge en that point. If, as is commonly alleged, the incole.ne-tax. iS to ser ve as a temp p rary f un d for permanent relief to industry, let us hear how far that is to go, and at what point the claims of working people • with less than 150/. a year are to be considered so far satisfied that working people with more than 1501. are no longer to b e taxed for the sake of those below them. How much more indirect taxation is to be reduced, and 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. HERALD.—" There is something towards a new great coat," said an Irishman wheat 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 now great coat. Ho 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 assiened to itself. Issok icC the Budget of last night. of what is it composed?.y Why the Minister—however well inclined —has only done a bit of petty larceny, when he might, with the same amount of moral effrontery, have can4itted the the t ati p lans wholesale felony of stealing the batch of fis cal pro pounded by Lord Stanley, and approved of by ui mous voice of the nation. This however, iv,lu not s Nor the purposes of the Government. Tee littleness of rnero Whiggery sticks to them to the last. They have not the courage to do inure then pilfer some odds and ends of the courageous and well-defined plan of the eiatesinan who is about to direct the destinies of the eiteen, e ea t We have only to ask our readers, will they submit to the rest eap „ s i t i u t t of the income-tax for three years? The, response is in the mouth of every man who enjoys a re venue of more than 150/. a year; an d we have no d ou b t ilia the amend ment of Mr. llerries, when proposed on Monday night, will meet with a general assent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well say that in hi s ex p os i t i on t h ere was " nothing striking"--indeed, there was nothing striking, save his knocking the nail upon the head, upon wh i c h be had nothing new to hang. The exposition of the Right Hon. Ucatleman is before the country. The . c "' S ~i ~:~~: z.,, question of the income-tax will be brought st4ostintWV 7 l-'''- 'sN before the House of Commons on Monday niglstNiidiesete have reason to believe that the result w ill aitii4; Ae f i s wishes of the nation—the dissolution of the Wedge . 1 '-"r -cal Ministry, and th e a d ven t t o p ower of a Craw • able to accomplish the demands of the ADVERTISER.---The new edition of the Budget was published last night. We are much misueff tAten if it be not received by the country with nearly ` 4s rAle the same mingled emotions of disappointment and deri sion, as the first edition ushered into the world some weeks ago. We see in it the same 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 House and the public, more than a month ago. The window-tax is at last to be given up in name, but is to be retained, in a somewhat modified form, we admit, under the name of a tax en houses. " What's in a name?" What matters it to the payers of the impost, whether the collector calls for the money under the designation of a win der:, or cf es house-tax? It will be just as incon venient and es oppsessive to pay the amount under the latter, as under the former 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 br2nch—leaving not even a trace of it behind? But we 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 Bedget which relat e to the reduction of the timber and coffee duties aro to be retained, as at first proposed. The only parts of his former scheme which the Right Hon. Gentleman abando ns ent i rely are those which re lazed to the reduction of the taxes on seeds and lunatic asylums. These he now proposes to retain. The an nouncement was received with laughter and jeers. And so it well might. It is really lamentable to see a men filling the office of Chancellor of the Ex chequer, thus gravely trifling with matters of national finance. " But worse remains behind." The income tax is to be perpetuated, with all its en orm i t i es. The Right Hon. Gentleman, so far from seeing anything in quisitorial, oppressive, or unjust in this impo s t, h o ld s i t up as a perfect model in its way. He proposes no modie fication, no alteration, in any of its provisions. It i s true, he does not crown the nonchalance with whi c h h e speaks of this impost as the very perfection of taxes, by saying in so many words that he means to perpetuate it for an indefinite period; but there can be no question whatever that such is his intention. It now remains for the country to have its say on the subject. The financial oracle of Dovvning-street has spoken. His voice has been heard in Parliament, and will reach the ears of the entire nation before forty-eight hours have elapsed. It is for the nation now to speak. It is right that its voice should be aleo heard, and heard forthwith. Are the myriads of persons who are the victims of this iniquitous tax, to submit tamely to its re-imposition? It wilt be their own fault if they do. They have only to raise their voices against the monstrous meditated in justice, and both the Budget and its bungling author will be utterly swept away —never more to re-appear on the financial stage. CHRONICLE.—The Chancellor of 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 was 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, and the transference of certain charges tor lunatic asylums from the county rate to the Consolidated Fund, are struck out of the amended Budget. We regret the levity with which Sir Charles Wcod announced his reasons for these comparatively unimportant changes. He had met with no gratitude, he said, for his original proposals on these two points, and therefore he assumed that those concerned attached no value to the relief which was offered them. Yet the plan was originally either just or unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely did tot lot k tor extravagant gratitude for a boon of 150,0001. a year, 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 meantime 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. Herries' resolutions on Monday would not be with drawn for the sake of bringing in seeds duty free. These are not the reasons which would influence a wise and grave financial Minister. Sir Robert Peal never sought to buy off opposition by the repeal of some petty impost on a special interest. He knew that such an attempt could not succeed—and he would not have done it if he could. By declaiming against protective duties and the sponge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that be had met all the objections which were so universally raised against his first tentative Budget. And yet all the serious objections with which it was met had equally little to do with Protection and with repudiation. He came nearer the truth when he complained that his op. penente had said that his scheme contained no principle whatever. Having often ventured 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 be indifferent to the reclamations cf property. Bat wa 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 400,000 i. is the sum devoted to the carrying out cf this vital principle. With a surplus of 1,900,000/., some what more than a filth 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 texes on property. He has gone as fir as was justi- Ilable, and perhaps even farther, in the amount to whicb ho 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 la more than at present, few will he the un tashiengble mourners for the new afflictions of Bel gravia. There is, however, ono 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 201. a year, with 15t. of house-tax, will hit, in the event of being ux , ampt,d from the duty, for exactly 20/. 15s. When „ Chancellor of the Exchequer boasts that three m of houses will pay no duty whatever, he utterly icondemns the proposal which he makes for continuing a proportion of direct taxation. Why should fifteen seventeenths of e c:::n nta p l ro in e the house property ? Small houncs are Isda valuable than l argo of the kingdom enjoy an arbitrary d n'' a c e year lr h i 103ov or even house exemption ( b m .a e b , ; : ; y, but the owners are not f the and the ex -2 ( . I f . t t i l l 3 e , r e e ar, a v r : ht furnish the means of relieving the springs of elastic cannow assure 4 0 0, OO Sir O Charleshouses mu; B t P e re ni r e ar a t'Y' would a l Cllslire valuablent ruler ro-iut ou gh t t' a l- n o u 9 n " i s i a ct t ho i y p ro d uctive that it w'Zircer I Ct a i o it ta' e xr h e3 e ntit° n on u i' in'rer will be diminished by a large year from the adoption of his proposi ill2aol. the minimum of taxable rent, tf i ir i; cl .. t l io e nl s V 2 ' . vh :V et i l il become a common value of houses. In justice will necessarily lead to contrivances to imitate it and to evade the burdens which it imposes. The Mi nister entirely misconstrues Mr. Mill. An impartial housc•tex is an impost on income—in its exceptional form it is a burden on a certain kind 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 pale, must, with all its faults, be defended. It is bad enough to do nothing in support of sound principles; but .it to worse to deny and renounce them. The issue to ten dered to the House of Commons on Monday is that t io n of ci justice or injustice —progress or decay l a t x itat the property or of industry. We cannot doe in msjority will agree with Lord Retort Grosv enor be de clining to reject the burdens upon the rich, while the poor man pays twenty times the per -tentag e on his tea, his tobacco, and his beer. DAILY NEWS.—rhe Chancellor of th e Exchequer has at least simplified his Budget, and althou g h t h e mile lion and a quarter which ho gives up will br ing no very sensible pecuniary relief in any quarter, it will still silence in some measure the most clamorous of com plainants. Whether the o wners o f old-fashioned cowl. try houses, or of thos e large edifi ces in towns which happen to contain shel form that cl ass o f t h e comma nity which most requ ired d alleviation in th e wa y o f t axes , one may be incline d to doubt; but Sir Ch a rl es W oo d by his first Budget had flung 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 Ch ance llor's Budget was s omew h at b etter digested than hi s previous one , so was his sp eec h. It h a d warm th i n it ; and the man , bein g an am i a b le person, appeared to advantage, making an effort to vindicate his plans and repair his shattered reputation. In this he partially , succeeded with the House, which received his appeal with indulgence and even with favour. And yet that speech does not impress us with any higher idea of Sir Charles Wood's capacity as a financier. His theories were often erroneous, his eloquence, or what he intended to be such, was clap-trap, and his admissions highly imprce 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, and find, if they can, amongst them, or beyond them, bitter f i d the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. Sir Charhs p prefaced the financial i!eins of his now Budget by expatiatingrincreased ability prosperity of the country, and upon th h e i ; ; * e d a em y ands. He ability of the tax-payers to 'l'l l c - r and in the character depicted the income-tax as a trifle; of a gentleman of 5,000 e year, he declared that 150/. a income-tax was a small contribution. We admit it. But the 301. income and house -tax of a struggling man of business, or earner of 7001.. ab year, iii addition to some ~ t' is no trifle. We deny utterly that the country, I tio/. or 701. of other . t , a e x n e m s nali by mate is better able to than it was ten years ago. We deny that capital pay these talcs produces the same returns, that personalexertions command the same income, that speculation iu commer ce or in vestments in manufactures pr o d uce t h e any thing like the same results. Sir Ch ar l es W oo d says,same or a if Fl•* - be the case, then free trade i s a f a il ure. A1.040h i4 uleigaieu this to =Leto ape, lie should c4iai AO Ai ."- 41 A _ r