The Sun. — London, England, 1853-04-19 00:00:00

apeeolka Lord:Dufrerin, said that he would readily- vote against the continuationnOthe grant, but would_ now 'content himself with supporting the .ministerial amend ment. ' '...The 'Marquis of 'CLANRICiRDIC defended the Roman Catholic_ priesthood from the imputation cast u p on them 13YIlie•Bislitipiof,.ri on d on ,'atid, denied the necesity ! of -) any inquiry whatever. The Duke otr-lazille t to:_bore tiatirtiony to the good conduct:44a priests at :Nay be oth. -1 The ,Earl-of SHAFTESBURY thought the inquiry neces sary, because he believed the number of priests was in creasing in An inverse'ratio to the increase of population, and that if so, the condition of the grant was violated. He would support the Earl of Aberdeen's amendment, if the commission consisted of five instead of three ; and moved some ,-ierbal amendments to the amendment of the ministry. The Duke of ARGYLL supported the amendment, a course which he declared to be consistent with all his ormer votes and speeches. While he objected to a ommittee, he thought that, with the present feeling in he country, some inquiry was expedient. He con cluded by questioning the consistency of the noble leader of the opposition, upon which The Earl of DERBY illustrated his total disregard for the criticisms of the noble duke by a parallel drawn from low life—of a gigantic navvie, who, having been beaten by his wife, a little woman, asserted that it amused her, and did not hurt him. He could see very little difference between the motion and amendment, but would support the former. Lord LANSDOWNE objected to the appointment of a committee on a subject of this kind. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY and an e xplanation from Lord ABERDEEN, The Earl of SHAFTESBURY withdrew his amendment. Lord GREY insisted that there was no occasion for inquiry, and that a committee would be especially in expedient. Lord. WINCHILSEA having replied, The house divided, when the motion was lost by 110 to .53. ,The house then adjourned. HOUSE•OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The Szr4Kpß took the, chair a few,u4nutes before four o'clock, at Which time there was a very large attendance of thezaberS.___ NEW MEMBER. Mr. GREENE' took the oaths and his seat for Lan caster. • PRIVATE BUSINESS.. - The following bills were read a third tune and passed : Bognor. Railway,; Runcorn .and Weston Canal Bill ; Teignmouth,,Harbour and Teign Navigation_; Midland Railway (Amendment of Acts , StC.)Scottish Central , follotviag billS ware read a second time', :—Ran bri'lge, Newry, and. Belfast Junction Railway ; Portsmouth war-; 'Ainbergate; Nottingham, and Bus ton'• and En.stern JunctiOn Railway (No. 1); Ain - laergatei, '3.`Tottingham, and' Boston and' - Eastern. Jrinc tion Railway (Sale, Rzo.) (No,: 2) ; Ayrshire • an.l Galloway (Sinithstown and - Dalinellington) Railway ; `"Crieff Junction Railway • Great Western Railway (Hen :lV) ; -Great IVestern Railway (power to'run over Shrews bury- and .-Birmingharn; drc., Railways) ; Great Western, 'Shrewsbury - and Birminghs.in,.4lld Shrewsbury and Ches ter Railway .Companies' Amalgamation ; Great Western, Shrewsbury aii'tqirrninghain, and Shrewsbury and Chester Ail Way • corn panies . (traffic arrangement); Hereford, Ross, and Glen Cdster Railway; Herefordshire and Gloucestershire C! , ..naland -Londim and North,Western Railway ; Limerick and Foyilei Railway ; London and . Finsbury, Improve ments and Railways, Sze. ; South Eastern Rail Way (Can terbury and - Whitstable,. &to.) ; South Staffordshire Rail way ; West Ooruwall Railway ; Worcester and Hereford Junction Railway ; York, Newcastle, and Berwick, York and North - 11i.1111nd. and Leeds Northern Railway Com panics (Amalgamation, &c.) EASTERN UNION RAILWAY. On the, motion that this bill be read a.second time, Lord A. PAGT moved that it 'be read a second time that day six months, on the ground that the bill involved au arrangement in regard to running powers which would endanger the safety of the public. XT.:ADAIR thought that the bill should: be sent to: a £ele A committee.' CAXLEY supported the bill, and complained of the arbitrary conduct of the Eastern Counties Company to wards this railway, Mr. CA.RDWELL said it was the ordinary practice of the house, when there was a difference of opinion upon a private bill of this kind, to send it to a committee, in order that the fullest inquiry should take pl ace . Mr. WADDINGTON defended the conduct of the Eastern Counties Company. After a few observations from Mr. COBBOLD and Mr. G. BALL, The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was rea a second time. TAI7NTON ELECTION. Sir G. GREY reported that this committee had deter mined that Mr. Arthur Mills was hot duly ''elected for Taunton ; also that bribery prevailed at the last election, but it was not proved with the knowledge or consent of Mr. Mills. NEW ROSS ELECTION. Mr. HEADLAM reported that this committee had come to the resolution that Mr. Charles Gavan Duffy was duly elected for New Ross. - VOTE BY BALLOT. - - Mr. HENRY BERKELEY gave notice that, on the 11th of May, he would ask for leave to bring in his usual bill for taking the vote of electors by ballot. REFORM OF THE LONDON CORPORATION. Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the noble lord the mem ber for the city of London, whether, in the commissi on o f inquiry regarding the state of the orporation of London, there would be any objection to direct an investigation into the working of the city police acting under the corpo ration, with a view (without derogating from the present excAlent administration of that force) to a consideration of the advantages of consolidating the whole of the metro politan police under one management ; also, whether that commission is to be appointed by act of Parliament so as to enable it to pursue, with adequate power, its inquiries; and whether there be any objection to add to its duties a like inquiry into the corporation of the adjoining City of WeStminster. LOrd J. RUSSELL said there would be no objection to the commission of inquiry into the working of the city po lice. With regard to thesecond question, he had to state that the corporation of the city of London had expressed their willingness to give every assistance to an inquiry by com mission, and there would, therefore, be no necessity for a bill on the subject. As to the last question, he did not think it was desirable to extend the inquiry to Westmin ster. Lord D. STUART asked the noble lord the member for the City. of London, whether a protest has b een received by the GOVernment of this country from the Prince of Schleswig Holstein, against the treaty of the Bth day of May, 1852, regulating the succession to the Crown of Den mark ' • and, if so,.whether th ere will be any obj ec ti on t o lay th at document on the table of the house. Lord J . RUSSELL said that a protest had been received but he could not say whether it could be laid on the table of the house. On the motion of Sir B. Hall, the evidence taken before the Tynemouth election committee was ordered to be printed. Mr. M. MILES asked the Secretary of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of any instractions issued to Sir Everarcb Home, of her Majesty's ship Calliope, with a view to ascertain the fate of Mr. Benjamin Boyd, that officer has transmitted any report on the subject to the Admiralty, in connexion with his recent cruise amongst the South Sea Islands,,from which he is understood to have returned to Sydney on the 19th Dec. last; also, whether any repOrt has been received from the officer in command of the China station on the same subject . ? . Mr.' B. OSBORNE said that no report had yet been re ceived on the subject'. Mr. A.'WYSE asked Lord John RusSell whether it was the intention of h r Majesty's Government to • introduce, either ,in—this or the next session of Parliardent, any measure to abolish, or revise the laws 'relating to the settlement And removal •of the poor, or to alter the present mode of raising the rates for the "relief of the poor,, by distribm ing the charge over a wider and less variable basis, or otherwise. Secondly, if her Majesty's GovernMent are not prepared to. propose early legislation on these subjects, whether Lord John Russell will assent" to the appointment of a committee to inquire into the practical operation of the laws for the relief of the poor in England and Wales, and to consider the policy and general effect of all the laws relating to set tlement, removal, and parochial assessment? Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government were of opi nion that there would not be sufficient time to discuss a measure on this subject this session, but a measure would be introduced next session. Mr. PETO asked the member for the city of London if it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the sfcond reading of the education bill, pending the in quiry now proceeding in a committee specially appointed by the house to inquire into the subject, on the introduc tion of the Manchester and Salford Education Bill ? Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not his intention to pro eed with the bill until after Whitsuntide, when he hoped the report of the committee on the Manchester and Salford Education Bill would be laid on the table. In answer to• Mr. DIVETT - _ Mr. WILSON said that officers of the Mint were using every endeavour to meet the demand for small silver, lout the demand for gold coin being so great, it was impos sible for them to issue more coin. The amount of money turned out weekly was 600,0001., a much greater amount than had ever•been issued before. NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. In answer to Dir. H. BAILLIE, Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that as the p apers which had been l a id b efore the house relative to the c harges which had been made against the New Zealaid Company fully bore out- those charges, he saw no reason for asking for a furthgr inquiry this session. THE BUDGET. On the moti on f or g9ing. into Committee of Ways and Means, Petitions were presented by LioorrdaHiffoetrent medi ca l socie ha.m, Mr. B r i g ht , Mr. Peto, Lord Dudley Stuart, ties ; by Lord Stanley and other honourable gentlemen, praying for an alteration of the income tax so far as it bears upon precarious income s ; by My. Kershaw, from Stockport, against the taxes on knowledge ; by Mr. Ewart. praying for the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese ; by ColonA Harcourt, from the i s l e o f Wight, against the duty on malt and hops ; by My. Gaskell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobbet, and Mr. Milner , for a re_ peal of the certificate tax. Twe house then went into committee, Mr. BOVVERIE in the chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER o and said—The annual exposition of the financial state r an s d e pro 'T eets of this country, upon ordinary occasions, abundant materials of interest to this house and affords to the country, and of anxiety to the person charged with the preparation . of That exposition ; but on the present occa sion, perhaps, that interest on the one hand, and, certainly, that anxiety on the other, are greatly enhanced by a variety of cireunislanCe4 including among them the number of motions which have recently been made in thiAouse, in eagerneSs of the people with respect di c ati4 the increasing t o financial (Hear, hear.) Political events, • ;shock; which have enfeebled or overthrown_ Atiministra-. tions,aadhithiNa..44ittle.# Icyto adjectrn from year to year questions of taxation, have likewise greatly accumulated on the present Government the task they have to discharge in that regard ; and in 'connexion'with those questions there have of late been raised diicussions of a nature most deeply interesting, descending to the first ele mentary principles of taxation, and almost to the first principles on which men are united - in civilised society. (Hear, hear.) With a task so formidable before me, I feel warranted in addressing a special appeal to the committee for their kindness and indulgence, for I am certain that only, by their kincinlss and indulgence, can I be enabled— I will not say to discharge the task as it ought to be dis charged, for that is wholly beyond my power—bat to dis charge case td - be at least intelligible, to my hearers. it Hesar, in , hear:),Th9 first portion of my duty w ill s ( o a , be to lay before the committee the account of the country. I think I shall best discharge it by taking up the state of that account from the point at 'which it stood last year, when the financial department was in the hands of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), and it will be satisfactory to the committee to observe, that as our experience grows with the lapse of time, so do we obtain larger and still larger proof of the elasticity of the revenue and of the progress of the productive and consuming powers of the country. (Cheers.) On the 30th of April, 1852, the :right hon. gentleman opposite estimated the revenue for the year at 51,625,0001., and in the month of December, 1852, when the right honourable gentleman had occasion to return to the subject, he was able to pre sent to us an estimate which placed the revenue of the year at 52,325,0001., exhibiting an increase upon his estimate in April amounting to not less than 700,0001. And now, within the few months which have elapsed since last De cember, we have further evidence of the same gratifying character, for the , revenue which the right hon. gentleman then judiciously estimated at 62 ; 325,000/. amounted.to no leis, when we - reached the termination of the year, than shoWing an. increase of 1,464,0001. upon the estimate formed at the commencement of the year. (Hear; hear.) The expenditure of : the last year, as estimated by the sight lon. gentleman opposite on the 30th of April, 1852, was taken at 51,163,0001. but the actual expenditure has only re ac hed to 50,782,000 Z., ;and consequently you haie had figurevpresented to you in the balance-sheet which must have been grat ifying to every member of the committee in showing a su rplus of income over the expen diture to the amount; of 2,460;000/. (Hear; hear.) But, having reached this point by a smooth and easy progress; it is now my duty to entreat hon. gentlemen to make large deductions, from the very sanguine estimate-s-so sanguine as; aiiiiSiderihg the quarter from wbieh it came, to excite my surPrise ss -that because our balance yields 2460,000/. of surplus, therefore we have that sum available for re- I mission of taxation. ,That would be a too precipitate in ference. Unfortunately, before we arrive at that conclu sion; there is one circumstance rather material to exatnine, and that is—what is the estimated' amount of expenditure of the year that' We have just. commenced ? - when I leak to that; and compare , it as estimated, andas it appears on the, votes before the house, with the estiniatas of the lUet year; I find it stands as follows :—The expenditure.for 1 - 852-53 wag- 50,782,0001., ; .but the expenditure for 1853-51, the groat bulk of which is already voted ; and upon which 'I can anticipate, on the whole, noaliminution,amounts to 52X53,000/. Therefore, without going into Other par ticulars, which, I am sorry to say-, occasion a fur ther dedustion from the surplus of 2,460,0301., I hes , to. point out that no less than 1,400,000.:., or nearly three-fifths of thst surplus, are already;disposeil of by the charges, to wbieh you are liable under acts of Par :lianient, by the votes which the house has come for the de lance of the country, and by the charges DII account of the 'miscellaneous services, which, I apprehend, this house will net be inclined to s refuse or ta diminish._ (Hear, hear.) The right. heti. gentleman oppo,site, in December; 1852, esti mated as follows his surplus for the present year :—He took a total sum of 1,60),000t., of which. I thinks he stated that, on the ordinary.reventse„..he would venture to antici pate a surplus - amounting to between 1,300,0001. and 1,400,0001., and by decreaseinf charge for the Kafir war a sum of 200,0001. or 300,000/. These two sums put together gave a surplus; as the basis of his calculations for the year, amounting to 1,600,0001. At that period the right hon. gentleman thought, that the only charge against that sur plus on account of coming expenditure would he the alm a 103,0001., which he proposed to apply to, light clues and purposes connected with shipping, and Immo/. for the in crease he anticipated on -the great services Of the country. His successor has not been so fortunate, nor has he thought it wise to confine the votes far the year within these limits. I shall now state to the house how that surplus of 1,600,0001. has been swallowed. 'The increase on the navy estimates, including the packet service, as voted in 1852, and as we found it prepared for this year (making the com parison with the estimate of April; 1852, not including the supplemental vote of December), amounts - to 617,6031. The' increase on the army and commissariat, but almost en tirely on the commissariat, is 90,0001. ; and that 'increase on the commissariat is to be accounted for by the fact that we have now reached, we trust, that stage in the hostilities at the Cape when we may consider our extraordinary votes at an end, and when - the provision to be made has passed under ordinary expenditure ; 'therefore, though it is our duty to submit to the :house, during the present ses sion an extraordinary vote for 200,0001.; which is essen tially retrospective, we have likewise to submit a vote for 70,000/. in commissariat expenditure, which in its charac ter is - prospective, and analagous to our ordinary estimates. So the durable expenditure, as far as the Cape is con cerned, is charged' on the service of the present year.' The increase on the ordnance is 616,0001. The militia estimates have not yet been brought to the shape in which they will be laid on the table : but I am sorry to say that there will be a large and I believe unavoidable increase on the amount taken last year by my right hon. friend then Secre tary for the Home Department. The estimate for the present year cannot, I fear, be expected to be much less, if at all less than 530,000/. I doubt if it was expected twelvemonths ago by my right hon. friend that the amount would be more than something like 300,0001. If so, there would be a considerable increase in the expense of giving effect to that plan, and it is right that the House of Com mons should know the expense of giving effect to any plan, and especially one which has realised, in other respects, all the favourable anticipations formed of it. (Cheers.) The increase of expense for the militia, as compared with the reckoning of my right hon. friend, will be about 230,0001. The last item in these augmentations of expense is the suni of 100,0001. added to the votes daring the present year for the purposes of public education. If the committee take the pains to put together these five items they will find that, though the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. D'lsraeli) anticipated a surplus of 1,600,0001 for the finan cial year of 1853-4, the augmentations of charge, princi pally voted already and in part yet to come, amount to no less than 1,654,0001. As I have already stated to the com mittee there has been some further improvement in the revenue, and there are likewise some few items of public expenditure on which the Government have been able to effect some small saving. With respect to the important and unsatisfactory charge for the packet contract service, it has been our most anxious desire - to see what, consis- tently with justice, was to be done to amend the position of the public. We think that the amount of charge which that service has reached; is *holly disproportionate with the benefit derived: (Cries of " Hear.") lam not at pre sent iu a condition to lay the estimate on the table, or to state exactly what the estimate will be, but I venture to anticipate at any rate for the first year, we may be able to effect a saving on it of not less than 75,0001. There will also be a saving on the charge for Exchequer-bias, owing to the diminution of interest, amounting to about 65,0001., and there• will be a sum which the house must observe is occasional in its nature, of 135,0001., arising out of repay ments to the Crown revenues, and available under the pro visions of the law as ways and means, in consequence of the bill passed by the house having reference to metropoli tan improvements ; and also there will be produced a sum, by the liberation of the Crown revenues from a charge which heretofore affected them on the satne account, to the extent of about 27,0001. These various items wi►l give a' fund amounting to about 301;0001. I will now state more particularly to the committee the items of anticipated revenue and expenditure' of the coun try, from which they will see precisely the amount of the surplus we have to deal with. - I should at the outset ex plain that I think it would be convenient, that I should in all cases, disregarding inaccuracies, minute give the sums in round numb ers . I will now present to the committee an account of the estimated revenue and expenditure for the year 1853-54. With regard to the expenditure, the charge for the funded debt is put down at 27,500,0001., and the charge for the unfunded debt at 304,0001., making a total for the debt of 27,804,0001. The charges on the consolidated fund will be 2,503,0001. ; the army estimates, 6,025,000/. ; the navy, 6,235,000/., not including the packet, service ; the Ordnance estimates, 3,053,000/. • miscellane ous, 4,476,000/. ; commissariat, 557,000/. ; the militia, as nearly as I can judge, 530,000/. ; the extraordinary vote for the Kafir war, 200,000/. ; and the packet service, I think, may. be fairly taken at 800,0001. for the present year. These items give a total of estimated expenditure amounting to 52,183,000/. I now come to the estimate of anticipated revenue. I take the revenue of the Customs at 20,680,000/. • Excise, 14,640,0001. • stamps, 6,700,000/. ; taxes, 3,250,006/. ; and income tax, 5;550,000. From the Post-office we expect 900,000/. '• and from the Crown linds, swelled by the addition I have already referred to, 390,000/. ; from miscelhiheous sources of receipt (including, I think, about 160,000/., being the capital of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, out of-which we shall have to pay 80,0001. during the present year on account of pensions, and the whole of the remainder,' I need not say, will be absorbed long before that charge for pension ceases) we expect about 320,0001., and from old stores 460,0001. To these I ven ture to add, though the items is necessarily one of uncer tainty and conjecture, that I anticipate a saving of no less than 100,0001. from the operations which have been pro posed to the house in connexion with the exchange and re demption of stock. It may, certainly, be less, and it may, on the other hand, beinore—the final result, I hope, will show a considerable saving. I venture now to take credit for 100,0001. on that account. Adding up, then, these va rious items, the committee will find that they give a total estimated income for the year of 52,990,0001., against which we have to set the total estimated expenditure of 52,183,000/., showing an apparent surplus of 807,0001. Anxious, above all, to avoid raising undue expectations, I am desirous to impress on the committee that it must bear in mind that 'out of this sum of 800,000/. an amount of 215,0001. consists of moneys which do not proceed from permanent or recurring sources, but •of moneys due simply to the year, and not to be repeated. Like wise, with the uncertainty connected with the items for the packet-service and for the Channel Islands' har bours, on which my right hon. friend at the head of the Admiralty and I are not, quite sure whether we can or cannot' venture to make a reduction in the sum printed in __ . ----- . to the extent of 10 0, 0001 . men tioned may not be realized , for the c ommittee to Therefore, it will be more secure dof 800,000 _ ., / will be the estimates, it is possible that the surplus I save assume that the surplus, At con sists of occasional payments. 700 ,0001., and to bear in mind that 21_ my sanguine giving this explanation by way of caption, This is hope is that we shall realise a surplus of 800,0001.th5e,000samLooutitLf,itwililethe state of the account of the country, as I have endea voured t o b r i ng it up to the present moment. The com mittee will not have failed to observe that in reckoning the estimated income I have included a large sum amount ing to more than one-tenth of the whole revenue, which, from 184.2 up to the present time, we h ave b een d er i v i ng from the income-tax. Ilowever, the income-tax has at this moment legally . expired, and .it will be for the. com mittee to consider whether or not they. shall. revive it. Upon that subject I am afraid that it will be my duty to trouble the committee at some length ; but before I venture on a detailed and continuous exilbsition of the views of the Government with respect to prospective finance, there are two questions - to which I must - briefly advert on -account chiefly of the position they oecupied - in -the financial itate meat of my predecessor in the offiee I now fill. The first gof these has reference to a particular class. Now, a re a,r(ls the -shipping-interest- the-house knows from a st4e to ent already niade.by -my -right hon. friend - the-Pre s ident' - Hof tr Board of Trade, that - her M a je s t y ' s Government `'pro so to afford what they trust will ba found consider , able benefit arid relief to that interest, without inflicting an annual charge upon the public. (Hear.) But there was another interest mentioned by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) which has so much claim upon the general sympathies of the house, that respect and consider ation demand that I should not leave it without men tion ; I mean that is called the West Indian interest. (Hear.) With regard to that interest, I regret to say that there is indeed little, if anything, that can be done by a Go vernment, in our view, consistently with its more extended duties to the public, in fulfilment -of the requisitipn which that interest has preferred. 'With regard to a reduc tion of the duty on sugar, -which is one of its requests, in proportion to the fall in the duty upon foreign sugar, so as to maintain the differential' rate that now exists' between them, it is entirely 'impossible for the Government to hold out the smallest hope of their recommendation being adopted. (Hear.) With respect to the question of re fining sugar in bond, which is of a different character, my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) will take a future occasion of entering more at large into that question; but I rag-set to say that we have not dis covered any method of granting that privilege in the pre sent state of the law with respect to sugar which would be satisfactory to the West Indians and to the refining trade, and which at the same time would not inflict very heavy loss upon the revenue. (Hear.) With respect to the equali sation of spirit duties, again I fear that really nothing re mains to be done in that respect. I believe the distillers of this country consider that already the duties have been somewhat more than equalised, all things considered, in the case of the West Indies. At all events, we are not prepared to propose any change in the law in the nature of equalisa tion of spirit duties as between colonial and domestic pro duce. (Hear.) There is but one way in which it has oc curred to the Government that they might entertain a sanguine hope of being able, at very slight charge to this country, perhaps at no charge, to confer material benefit on the West Indies; and that is a way which, if it can be effected, will, I am sure, command the approbation of this house, because it is by enabling them to economise the heavy expenditure of their own governments—(hear)---a heavy and now in many cases almost a ruinous expenditure., In the case of Jamaica, for example, there isn public debt, the minimum rate of interest upon which is 6 per cent., and the Maximum 10 •er cent., the capital of the debt amounting to about 500,1111 a; and if it were possible for the Government to induce the Assembly of Jamaica to amend the vicious constitution of that island, and to place it upon a foundation that would give scope for a strict con trol over expenditure, •her 16.jesty'ti Government would then be disposed to recommend to this house to eipploy - the credit of this country in a gnaranted for the island of Ja rnaiea: (Hear.) I' do not now inquire whether that would entail a charge upon year; I believe it would entail none. Would. be the first to assert that there should be' the ut most jealousy as to the interposition of the credit of this country . between debtors and creditors Out of this - , --(hear)—but, considering all that has happened to the Wert Indies, considering the effect that British legislation has had in, precipitating their difficulties; rdo beliefe . that if we were able to point' out a 'prospect - of great' and effec tual relief to Jamaica, to be indirectly obtained 'through an effectual reform in its government, this houSe would look with a generous and a considerate eye upon any proposal for using the credit of this country in the - manner that I have , Mentioned. (Hear.) That refers to Jain - aka; which presents at this moment by far the most:urgent case of dis tress among the We3t - Inlia colonies: lam not sure that there`is any other among thOse colonies Which would be in a condition to request a similar interposition—(hear)—if they. Aid, it would depend upon the case they showed. I do not think it likelysthat such a case will arise; all I mean to say at the present 'inoreent i 5, that the door would not be absoltitely shut'ao• e ninst them. I !Ass on now froni the col lateral topic of the West Indian interest to another topic— that connected with the - Exchequer Loan Fund. After all that passed in debate in peceMber last; it was' evidently the dray of her Majesty's Government to - make a full investiga tion into the transactions of that board. We haveinstituted (that investigation —we have preSatited the results in pri tto the house—they are in a form so simple that an inspection loccupyina e only a few minutes will exhibit them - Co anyhon. member. It appears from the figures there presented that, gter debiting the Exchequerioan Fund—l won't say with bvery folly of Parliament, but - With every questionable or eibigu_ons grant that was made—after cham p ing thewhole of this to the last farthing, yet such has been the sound discre tion exercised by the members, and officers of that board in bite loans they have made, that _while they have afforded an inmien„se amount of local accommodation, they have like wise realised, after paying every expen e that belongs to' the office; a nethalance of not less than 227,3001.--(hear) -which balance, if we put values such as sanguine men Might perhaps put upon certain investments that have not yet been realised, it is far from impossible may be raised , to nearly 1,000,000/. of money to the credit of the entire transactions of the board. (Hear.) It is our candid opi nion, under these circumstances, that the:sentiments- ex pressed by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Ad rairalty, in .December last, in regard to the Exchequer Law Fund, are justified-by the facts—(hear)—and it is not our intention to propose the abolition of that system, which we think has been both honourable to those who have act-- ministered it, and highly beneficial to the country. (Hear.) -I now approach a difficult portion of the task that I have to perform—the discussion of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) . The first question that this committee has to con sider is, whether or not it will make efforts to part with the income tax at once. I do not say that such an alter native is impossible. On the contrary, I believe that by the conjunction of three measures, one of which must be a tax upon land, houses, and other visible property, of per.. haps 6d. in the pound; and another a system of licenses upon trade made univei sal, and averaging something like 71., and-the third, a change in your scheme of legacy duties —(" Hear, hear," from Mr. W. Williams, and other mem bers), it would be possible for you at once to part with the income tax. But her Majesty's Government do not recom mend such a course to the committee. (Hear.) They do not recommend it because they believe, in the first place, that such a system would, upon the whole, be far more unequal, and cause greater dissatisfaction than the income tax ; they believe, likewise, that it would arrest other be neficial reforms of taxation ; and they believe that it would raise that difficult question in regard to the taxation of the public funds of this country in a form the most in convenient. (Hear.) I might dilate upon this subject, but it is needless to do so. I leave it to those, if such there be, who are prepared to recommend the immediate aban donment of the income tax. Such is not the recommenda tion of her Majesty's Government. Now, in regard to the income tax, I wish that I could possess the committee - with the impression that constant study has made upon my own mind of the deep and vital importance of the subject. We are too apt to measure the importance of the subject by the simple fact that we draw from this tax 5,500,000/. of revenue. Sir, that sum is a large one, but the mention of it conveys no idea to the committee of the immense mo ment and magnitude of the question. If you want to ap preciate the income tax yon must go back to the time of its birth ; you must consider what it has done for you in times of national peril and emergency—(hear, hear)—you must consider what, if you do not destroy it—and I will explain afterwards what I mean by " destroy,"—what it may do for you again, if it please God that those times shall return. (Hear, hear.) Sir, in was in the crisis of the revolutionary war that, when Mr. Pitt found the resources of taxation 'were failing under him, his mind fell backupon the conception of the income tax ; and when he proposed it to Parliament that great man, possessed with his great idea; raised his eloquence to an unusual height and power. 'There is a description of the speech of Mr. Pitt on that oc casion, :written by a foreigner, a well-known writer of the day—Mallet du Pan--which I may venture to read to the committee ; I believe, after the lapse of 55 years, it will be read: not without interest. (Hear.) This is an account which, in a periodical that ho edited, he gives of Mr. Pitt's speech in 1798 : " From the time that deliberative assemblies have existed, I doubt whether any man ever heard a display of this nature equally astonishing for its extent, its precision, and the talents of its author. It is not a speech spoken by the avii mister ; it is a complete course of public cc - enemy ; a work, and one - of the finest works, upon, practical 'and theoretical finance that ever distinguished the pen of a philosopher and Statesman. We may add this statement to . the learned re searches of such men as Adam Smith, Arthur. Young, and Stuart, whom the Minister honoured with his quotations." (Hear, hear.) Ido not know 'whether this committee are aware how much the country owes to the former income tax, but, because I deem it to be of vital importance that you should fully appreciate the power of this colossal en gine of finance, I will venturato place before you, in what I think an intelligible and a striking form, the results which it once achieved. I will draw the comparison be tween the mode in which your burdens were met during that period of the war when you had no income tax—dur ing that period of the war when you had the income tax. in a state of half-efficiency—and during that. last and most arduous period of the war, when the income tax was in its full power. From 1793 to 1798, a period of six years, there was no income tax from 1790 to 1802 there was an income tax, but the provisions of the law made it far less effective in proportion to rate than it now is ; and from 1806 to 1815, a period of. 11 years, you had the income tax in its full force. Now, every one of us is aware of the enormous weight and enormous mischief that have been entailed upon this country by the accumulation bf our debt—(hear, hear)—but it is not too much to say that it. is demonstrated by the figures that it need. not at this moment have ex isted if there , had been the resolution& to submit to the income tax at an earlier period. (Hear.) This test I think you wiL admit is a fair one ; I put together the whole charge of government and war, together with the charge of so much of the national debt as had accrued before 1793, so as to make (if I may so express myself) a fair start from 1793. (Hear, hear.) The charge of goverriment and war, together with the charge of debt incurred before 1793, amounted on the average of the six years down to 1798 to 36,030,000/. a-year : the revenue of that period, with all the additional taxes that were laid on, ' amounted to 20,626,000/. a-year ; there was, therefore, an annual excess of charge above revenue—charge for government, war, and debt contracted before 1793, including the charge of debt contracted since 1793—0 f no less than 15,404,000/. (Hear.) In 1798 you just appreciate the income tax, and immedi ately a charge begins. In the four years from 1799 to 1802 the charge for the same items that I have mentioned, which had been 36,000,0001., rose to 47313,0001. a-year ; but the revenue rose to 33,724,000/. a-year, and the - excess for those four years was diminished by about 2,000,0001; a-year ; instead of an annual excess of 15,400,0001. over revenue, it was 13,689,000/. But now look to the operation of the tax from 1806 to 1815, during the time - when your exer tions were greatest and your charges were heaviest. The average annual expenses of war and government from 1806 to 1815, together with the charge upon the, debt contracted before 1793, wa5 , 67,794,000/. ; but you had your income tax, in its. full force, and the revenue of the country now amounted to 63,790,0001—(hear)—and the deficiency, in actual hard money, which represented something like double the amount in debt, owing to the rate at which you borrowed—(hear)—instead of being 15,404,0001. a-year, or (as it was in the second period) 13,689,0001. a-year, was only 2,004,0001. a-year from 1806 to 1815. (Hear, hear.) Such was the power of the income tax. I have said there was a deficiency annually of 2,004,0001., but it is fair for you, to recollect, and it is necessary in order to present to you the fact I want to place in clear view, that-out of the 65,794,0001. of charge that I have mentioned, about 9,500,0001. were due for charge of debt contracted before 1793, so that if you compare the actual expense of govern ment with the whole expense of war from 1806 to 1815 with your revenue when you had the income tax, it stands thus before you—that you actually raised 7,000,0001. a-year during that period more than the charge of government and the charge of war. (Hear.) That, I must say, is to me a most remarkable fact. (Hear.) It affords to me the proof, that if you-do not destroy the efficacy of this engine—l do not raise now the question whether it is to be temporary or permanent, which I hold to be quite a different question, and I will go into that by and by —it affordayou the means should unhappily hostilities again break ott, of at once raising your army to 300,000,and your fleet to 100,000,with all your establishments in proportion. (Hear, hear.) A whichn concur—o f a smay a be arm y s r a es iL ofeirve the importance—inandnavyreseand of drovi ng your do c kya r ds • well stored, I 'say this 7-iscalrOrve c7l.lesiioinuproarrts,ailaci7r:. hear)fisfortit,l' Vd u rithrhher i gif e c it s V .9:41;;" THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 19, 1858, necessity arise—which may God in His mercy avert (hear, hear)—with it judiciously employed you mayagain, if need be, defy the world. (Loud cries of hear, hear.") This, then, is the purpose which the income tax has served— that niethe time of vital struggle, it enabled you to raise the income of the country above its expenditure of war and civil government (hear), and that service so performed was performed at a time when men do not minutely in quire into the incidence of taxation ; they do not then indulge themselves, in the adjustment of details; but are lefraldelest they should lose the 'mass- and the substance. (Hear, hear.) But times when the hand of violence is let loose, and when whole plains are besmeared with carnage, are the times when it is desirable that you should have the power of resort to this mighty engine, to make it again available for the defence and salvation of the country. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, the income tax dropped along with the purpose of the income tax in 1816. But it was destined to be revived. Sir R. Peel, in 1842, called forth from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war, to come and assist our industrious toils in peace (hear, hear) ; and if the first income tax produced enduring and memorable results, so I am free to say, at less expenditure by far in money, arid without those painful accompani ments of havoc, war, and bloodshed (hear, hear)—so has the second income tax. The second income tax has been the instrument you have introduced, and which, I hope, ere long you may perfect, the reform—the effective reform of your commercial and fiscal system (hear, hear) • and I, for one, am bold enough to hope an d t o expect ' that, in reforming your own fiscal and commercial system, you have laid the foundations of similar reforms--slow per haps, but certain in their progress —through every country of the civilised world. (Cheers.) I say therefore, sir, that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with it we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and may console ourselves for the annoyances it may have en tailed, by the recollection that it has been the means of achieving great good, immediately to England, and ulti mately to mankind. (Cheers.) Let me now attempt to present to the committee a closer analysis of this duty. I shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the Government, that we cannot at the present moment, with a due regard to the public interests, dispense with the in come tax. Let us look a little into its composition. Let us attempt to investigate the charges that are brought ;against it.- --T-am not one of those who make light of those charges. (Hear.) In my own individual opinion, it is 'perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax was put an end to at the terminatien of the war, that it 'is not well adapted for a permanent portion of your finan cial system. (Hear.) Whether it is so or not, on which there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on all hands agreed—that it is not adapted for a permanent :portion of your fiscal system, unless you can, by recon struction, remove its inequalities. (Hear.) Even if you ;could remove its inequalities, into which we will patiently examinee - there wOuldestinemain in my mind objections of the gravest phara4er. (Hear, hear.) The reconstruc :tion of your income tax would, I think, under any circum stances, be found to open up social questions of the most serious import ; and the machinery of the income tax, in volving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the objectionable principle of self assessment, in my opinion, can never be satisfactory to the country. (Hear, bear.) 'First, 'because self assessment leads to grievous frauds , upon the revenue, and renders the real inequality of the tax more trying than any of those ine qua liti es w hi c h im mediately strik the eye and feelings ; and, secondly, be cause of the tendency to immorality, which is, I feareessen tially inherent in the nature of the operation. But now let us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let me observe that we al e too much in the habit of speaking of this impost as merely a simple tax ; it is rather a code or System of taxation. In mere bulk it is a volume ;it has been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive years ; it combines a large mass of precedents: and in short it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,0001. a year. One - twenty-eighth part of this sum is 200,0001. Now, if you investigate the composition of schedule A, you will find that land and houses—which I take together, because their position is substantially analogous—including the in comes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and set tlements, pay no less than 12- 28ths of the tax, or about 2,403,000/. Now, let us look at the other great element of this tax, namely, the payment that proceeds from trades. In order to get at this payment accurately, we must de scend a little deeper than the mere classification of the echedules. There are in schedule A some considerable lasses of property which pay duty along with land and houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 27,0001. a Year, which - are essentially trading concerns. For the pur pose which I have in view I must likewise take out of sche dule B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous in character. This gives me 330,0001. more, and then I dome to what I may call trades proper—namely, those eihic e h thi a o p g pe li a k r e in 1,200,0001. e These pand threew which pay a of s t u r m ade o s f something iia schedules A, B, an d D, contribute an income of no less than 1,800,0001., or 9-28ths of the whole tax ; and the two together—that is t o sa y, l a nd and houses and trades, pay 4,200,0001.; or 21-28ths of the whole tax. There remain the funds in schedule C, which pay 750,0001., or I.7th of the whole tax, and salaries in schedule E, which pay about 1 4 17th of the tax. Professions in schedule D, after striking out those which partake rather of - the character of trades, : Pay 250,0001., or about 1-22 d of the tax. Thus, we se e , the funds, salaries, and professions make up tl e remaining 4th of the tax—three-fourths being paid by lands and ' , houses and by trades. It is said that gross inequality is the characteristic of the tax, and that it ought not to b e levied—that it is unj us t to tax' precarious and realised in come alike. What income is precarious, and what income is realised ? Income derived from trade would, I presume, bo called precarious - and, without wishing to anticipate the judgment of the committee, I may probably assume that this is their opinion. Observe that, after all, the main question is between land and trade. Everything else, in respect of bulk and magnitude, forms but a mere outline of this, the main question. Land and houses, we find, pay an income tax of 2 ,400,000/., and trade pays 1,800,0001. ; between them they pay three-fourths of the whole tax. It is, therefore, evident that the justice of the present rela tions between land and trade must go a considerable—l do not say the whole —way towards the solution of the great question, whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not. Let Ifs; then, look at the tax as it stands between land and houses and trade, and if the committee will do me the fa vour to follow me in the estimate I am about to enter upon, it' shall be my endeavour to place the matter before them in as clear a light as possible. My first object is to show the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say that realised and precarious incomes ought to pay different rates, and that therefore the tax ought to be reconstructed, they forget to inquire whether at the present moment rea lised and precarious incomes, as represented by land and houses on the one hand, a nd by trades on the other, do not pay different rates. Let us, in the first place, see at what rate land and houses pay. Land pays in the gross 7d. in the pound upon an income not assessed by the possessors of the property, but by strangers independent of them, and this sum is paid without any, the smallest, deduction in respect of the difference between gross and net income. (Hear, hear.) It is obvious that, in order to estimate how Much land and houses really pay, we must deduct the whole of the difference between the gross and the net income: Nay, we must do amore than this, because the owners of land and houses are not the only persons beneficially 'interested in this description of property ; for instance, a large body of mortgagors encumbrancers, and life-rente rs , w h o, although they pay 7cl ' . in'the pound on their "share o f the proceeds of land and houses, do not make up the difference between gross and net receipts. In the estimate lam about to submit to the committee I have been guided by inquiries which every 'member is as capable of making as I am. I can only say that the estimate has been framed in a spirit of modera tion, and tested, as well as the case admitted, by reference to persons most familiar with the subject. About 80,000,000.., the gross income of land and houses, pay the tat. At 7d. in the pound, this gives, in round numbers, 2,333,0001. What are the deductions which ought to be 'allowed for the difference between gross and net income, — I will not say according to an arbitrary standard of equity —but if we' should break up the present scheme and con struct' a new one, what should we be called on, and of course I must say, what shOuld we in justice be compelled, to allow on this score 7 In. Scotland the difference allowed but we hav e th e ' b ur d ens. The first bet Ween gross "arid net income from l an d i s k nown b y th e ge charge fo r repa i rs, and under this designation of "`public burdens." - We have no an a l ogous and draini ng . R epa i rs d, but as regar d s h ouses must in tem allow for i nsurance , constitute a ' o e i r s a s d a t ts si l e tt i ngsdlgeatelrrhah.geneedd:aHg; charge r in e a g r , ; upon ditch,yoi landing a i ill ,and also for law charges, without which it is impossible to conduct business connected, with landed property and houses. (~ H eae ,e from the , Opposition.) You must allow —I will not say all the cost of management, but as much of it as you allow to'a merchant under . schedule D and —you must allow foi clerks,' sub-agents, ground-bailiffs, ffi rec oces, stationeiy, eipts, and so forth. Y ou must allow feri abatementrreareefrent, you must lik ew i se a ll ow for what is called of rent which is a real deduction from income. (" Hear," from the Opposition.) How much shall we allow under these heads ? What is the gross de duction we must make from the income of 80,000,000/, supposed to be received by the owners of land and houses ? I take it at 16 per cent. I do not think this is an unfair estimate ; I am certain that it is, in some instances, a very low one. (" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If 16 per cent. be a fair - deduction, it is evident we should reduce the 'sum of 12,800,000 1 ., which is actually expended befo re the 80,000,0001. subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by there fore, we have arrived at this poinf, that we h ave got, the 'Jeanne reaches the pocket of the own er ; and, in stead Of 80,000,0001. of income, only 67,200,000/., and this reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,0eee (Cheers.) Then I come to another question upon which I must again resort to conjectural estimate. What is a fair estimate to make of the total amount, of charges on land and houses all over the kingdom, in respect not only of mortgages, but of settlements and all ether arrangements of that kind ? I estimate that one-fourth part of [the gross income derived from land and houses goes into the pockets not of Persons beneficially interested in them, properly , speaking, but into those of mortgagees and others who the owners of land an d houses do not receive 67,200,000 e. • re ceive under settlem en t s . If that be so, then it appears that but fromthat sum y ou mustdediret, the fourth p ar t o f 80,000,000/. This sum of' which reduces their income to 47,200,0001. 47,200,0001, es, then, the net receipt of thos e beneficially . interested in land and houses. (" Hear," from the Opposition.) But you will say the encumbrancers, who receive the 20,000,000/. 7 Pay the income tax. Well, let us see what their quota amounts to, Sevenpence in the pound on 20,000,000/. gives 583,000/. Deduct this sum from the 2,333,0001. pa id by the owners .of land and houses, and the sum o f 1,750,000 1 . will be left , and this is the amount actually p a id on an income of 47,200,000/. find the result to be this, figures I have stated, they will and houses is taxed that the income deri ve d from lan— a pound. If honourable m em b ers w ill take the trouble to apply the at the rate, not o f 7d., but 9d. in the (Cheersl facie case for know is this—supposing there be a pr im a the ground of inequality breaking up the income tax on namely, the owners of from the Opposition benches.) Then, what want to between the two classes of payers, trades,be made between whole, think that if a difference ought to be greater than that the two classes, the difference ought to. ethe question whe therwhich now exists ? (Hear.) I do not ram land and houses and those engaged in do you onthe two classes ; I pass the question tlshow you that, by ; land at this moment according to a rational estimate, and lask any mode rate pays 9d., and trade 7d. in the pound, about to establish a there ought to be any difference whatever between the he between the two classes, man whether, if we were different rate of payment greater, than exists at would think of making the difference l t the right hon. this moment? (Cheers.) 'ln Decemberas that realised gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) p roposed . us income one income'Should pay a tax of 7d., and now precarious of 54d. Now, if any one will have the kindness to co m p are my figures with the right hon. gentleman's proposal, it will be found that, within a fraction of a farthing, the ratespaid to by the two' classes of income are at present equivalent the present 7d. and 54d. (Hear, hear.) If we break u and houses, it is relieve' trade at the experise'of, land well. that -those who may about to Sanction that purpos e f ix ing the Pre" income tax it must be for some object. If p that object be should consider where they are to begin in portions of the payments to be made by different classes, and where they are to end. (Hear, hear.) If it be de sired to settle the question according to the views which have pressed themselves on the minds of many moderate and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and by my hon. friend the member for Wiltshire in committee—namely, by making land pay about 4d. and precarious income about 3d., then I say that object is accomplished, for the payments of the two classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment. But let us go further in the consideration of this vastly im portant question. I protest against the doctrine of those who propose to do justice between the two kinds of income by establishing average classes in each kind. That is the course advocated by • the hon. member for Montrose. The hon. member is always consistent, and always manful ; and when he sees a difficulty he takes no pains to avoid it. (Laughter.) His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income tax, into difficulties which a man acting as a tactician would avoid. The common notion was that incomes should be classed in averages. In the name of reason and common sense I ask, how those who demand equality can obtain it by averaging classes of income ? Look at an nuities. The tables give the value of female life at 15 years of age at 25 years' purchase, but go upwards to 70 or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only five years' purchase. Yet you propose to average these dissi milar classes—to bring-up the value of five years' purchase and bring clown the value of the 25 years' purchase. What possible average can these interests admit of? A life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of five years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life of five years' purchase, when called on to pay three times as much as he ought that the life of 25 years' purchase pays only half as much as he should do? (Hear, hear.) Still more absurd would be the attempt to average trades. Many trades are worth 25 years' purchase. I venture to say that if the matter be closely investigated it will be found that many trades are better, on the whole, than perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords oppor tunities for providing for children and relations such as no other pursuit presents. •(Hear, hear.) Let us, however, state the case mode ra t e ly, an d say th a t sometrades are worth 25 years' purchase ; there are others not worth more than five, four, or three years' purchase, and how are you to average the interest of a trade worth three and another worth 25 years' purchase? I must enter my protest against this averaging, of classes. There is another topic of a painful nature connected with this branch of the subject, to which I must briefly allude. We have seen that land pays 7d. in the pound according to a standard of value which does not depend on the will or testimony of its owner. (Hear, hear.) Trade, on the other hand, pays 7d. in the pound assessed by each trader himself. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that, in the majority of instances, the returns of the trad ers are f a i r l y an d honour ably made. There are many cases, in trade, in which it is a matter of extreme difficulty to know what return to make, and I believe that in these cases the doubt is solved by the honourable trader against himself, and that he returns his profits greater than they really are. Let it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the trading classes of England generally the conduct which is pursued by some individuals. I am going to state an extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been generally done, but of w h a t can be and has occasionally been done. I will mention no names--I will 'violate no confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town where a new street was built. The persons who lived and carried on business in the 'old street, which was pulled down to make way for the new one, had been charged a certain amount to the income tax. They had, also, of course, made returns to a certain amount und er th e in c ome tax. When the new street came to be built they claimed compensation for the loss of their business. The amount had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the com mittee with details, I will state the amount of compensa tion which these persons"—in number 28--claimed ; the amount awarded them by the jury, which may be taken as, on the whole, an a pp rox i ma ti on to the real value ; and the amount at which they returned their profits under the income tax. •IV ere I to descend to individual cases, it would be almost impossible adequately to describe the partly ludicrous and partly shameful aspect which they assume. I will, therefore, deal with the matter generally, and say that the 28 persons claimed the sum of 48,1591. as compensation for their profits for a single year. The amount of compensation awarded by the jury was 26,9731., or a little more than half what was claimed; but what was the amount at which they . returned their profits for assess ment to - the income t ax `l -- They claimed 48,0001. ; they got from the jury nearly 27,000/. ; but the return of profits for assessment to the income tax which they separately made amounted only to 9,000/. (Much laughter.) I deeply regret that the great body of honourable men who have made the name of British commerce famous throughout the earth, even more for its truthfulness than for its energy. should be degraded by association with persons who could perpetrate frauds like these. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do exist ; they are inseparable from the character of the im post, human nature remaining as it is ; and it is impossible when you are called upon to consider the question of the readjustment of the tax wholly to dismiss them from con sideration. Now, sir, I leave this part of the que s ti on with this proposition, which I think will hardly be contro verted—that as regards the state of the case between land and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration, there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction of the income tax. (Hear.) I have three other cases still to consider ; and first I will take the case of schedule E, which contains the payments that are derived from the in comes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that, no class of persons is included in schedule E, with the ex ception of persons connected with the Bank of England, who may not be called, in one sense or another, public ser vants. Some of them may be servants of local or separate authorities, as for instance the East India Company, but they are generally servants of her Majesty's Government. Now, with respect to the case of these public salaries, I think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such incomes and life incomes. As they are usually held almost for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is little inferior to that of life incomes ; and their inferiority, in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by this—that they are usually progressive incomes, while life incomes are fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dis passionate man to draw a distinction between the case of salaried and life incomes. With regard to remissions upon salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways. At present there is a movement among the civil servants of the Crown for a change in regard to their superannuation funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The tide has but lately turned, for it is not very long since the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Healey) made a motion in this house—and, unless I am much mistaken, he all but carried it—for reducing salaries of this description 10 per cent. Now, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that such salaries ought to be reduced by 10 per cent., l would suggest that it would be better to reduce them y a little less than 10 per cent. rather than break up the income tax on this account • but it would be much better to deal with public salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a separate arrangement, than to make them the occasion of an attempt to perform an operation which, up to this time, all those who have been responsible have unani mously declared to be impossible and absurd. Now, sir, I come to what is supposed to be the sore place of the in come tax—schedule C ; and when the committee have heard what I have to say, I will appeal to their love of justice, and put it to them whether schedule C, even if it stood alone, is • not rather a reason why they should not break up the income tax than why they should do so. I know this is a bold challenge, but see whether I don't maintain my position. In the first instance I will read to the committee a testimony that has come from across the Atlantic, in order to impress upon them the conviction that when we approach schedule C we begin to tread upon very delicate ground. We wrote to the United States, to ascer tain what was done in that country, where taxes of this nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds, and I have here a short letter, signed by Mr. Everett, dated " Department of State, Washington, 10th of Febru ary-, 1853," in which be ,says ' Sir,l have the honour -- to acknowledge the receipt of ydur note of the 9th instant, inquiring, by direction of her . Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the public debt of the United States is subject to pro perty or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock, and also whether, in the acts authorising the contracting of the debts, any provision was made, exempting them from taxation. In reply, I have the honour to inform you that there . is nothing in the constitution of the United States, in the laws creating the public debt, which prohibits this Govern ment from levying a tax on that debt ; the Governments of thb respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution." (Hear, hear.) Now, it appears to me, upon a fair review of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admit ted on all hands—that we are hound to give some rational construction to those words in the loan acts which provide that the public dividends shall be paid free of all taxes and charges whatsoever. I think we are bound to give them a rational construction. (Hear , hear.) Mr. Pitt thought the rational construction to' give them was, that you should not look at all to the nature of the obligation, but that you should consider the dividends simply in relation to the re ceiver as so much income. lam bound to say that I think Mr. Pitt's proposal was the safest and the wisest. It has, at any rate, been acted upon for more than 50 years, and under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been borrowed or reborrowed. (Hear, hear.) I do nut mean now to urge the difficulties you might have in the case of these acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construc tion, but what I do beg you to acknowledge is, that there is only one other construction; in any sense rational, that could be given to the words in the loan acts, and it is this —that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of the income, as tested by the price of stock when it is sold. I' will suppose then the proposition now is, that we should reconstruct the income tax, in order that we may levy the tax upon something like the capitalised value of the in come. Considering i the circumstances under which the in come tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under which that change is now suggested, I never can believe that it would be adopted by a British Parliament. Observe the effect which it would have upon the interest of the fundholders. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax he said to those persons, "We have nothing to do with the capitalised valve or with price ; we can look to nothing but what you receive from year to year." At that time, when the fundholder was taxed 'upon his income from year to year, what was the capitalised value of his income ? Sixteen years'.purchase. That was the average capitalised value of the fundholder's income for 17 years of the income tax, until tho conclusion of peace. Suppose your new doctrines had been in vogue then, the fundholder would have paid only one-half of what he did pay ; and shall I be told . that, after adopting one construction unfavourable at the moment to the fundholder, and after taxing him on the full value of his income f0r.17 years,, when he could only have got 16 years' purchase for his property in the market, England and the English Parliament will now turn round upon that man, in the manner suggested, when the value of his pro perty has risen to 33 years' purchase ? If you now determine that the capitalised value of the fundholder's income ought to be taxed, I say that you inflicted the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he then consented to pay 10 per cent, upon the value of hi s income he had confidence that peace would be restored, that his income would become more valuable, that faith would be observed with him—l mean faith according to the common principles of equity and justice—and that no ad vantage would be taken of that rise in value. But if the British. Parliament sets the example of establishing in time of war, when funds are low, the doctrine that you have nothing to do with capitalised income, and then in time of peace, when the funds are high, sets up the opposite d ° e trine, I will not merely say that the c h aracter of this - nation will not stand as in the time o f your fathers it has stood, but I warn you that you must abandon the idea of taking the lead among all the borrowers of the world, and that you must prepare for a change in your relations with those who have hitherto trust e d you. (Hear, hear.) There are persons who say, " We ought t o t ax incomes at differ ent rates, accordingly as they proceed from property or from skill." In fact, they would p l ace industrious incomes - on the one side; and lazy incomes on the other. Now, in my opinion, a great deal may be said in favour of that doe- thetwr tn with , public but respecto b revenue.s t observe r v h e i s th l e a effect hde, thei landholder householder u s t i h a u v s e t with t r e g a rd to as e t x o er his himself house, and the mortgagee must either look out himself , a or pay his l i a e i Ir y y e e t r h for er e looking o a k n i y n g incomeout which i s is na °pneejecilynand do not be income, except the income of the fundholder . ( Hear, and and a laugh.) If that were so, the fundholder would enjoy an entire pre-emin ence i n t axa ti on, and the degree of that pre-eminent it would rest with you to fix. I honour the sense of justice of the hon. member for Montrose, and so I honour the sense of justice of those gentlemen—the ac tuaries—who have recommended the fundamental recon struction of this tax, and who do look at the durability of incomes. If they had made their proposals in 1798, Ido not know that the fundholders would have had much reason to complain ; but, on the contrary, I believe that, upon the whole, they would have been gainers. I think, however, that the proposal of the actuaries is un sound in principle. I conceive that it is unsound in prin ciple to levy the income of the country in substance by a tax upon its property, for I think that income is the proper basis of taxation. I do not mean, however, to hold that as an extreme doctrine, but, if we have a pro perty tax at all, let us have, in substitution for the income tax, a good and honest property tax, such as the actuaries propose. Unfortunately the actuaries have the plan which they recommend entirely to themselves, for no one has ever been found to propose it in this house. In fact, no body will propose that plan, for every one knows that it is a mathematical speculation upon paper. It is not a project to be submitted to an assembly of men whose bounden duty it is to provide by practicable means for the constantly recurring wants and services of the country. The project of the actuaries I pass by, because, while it is of all others the most self-consistent, it is also, I will not hay the most difficult, but it is placed the farthest beyond the reach even of imagination as a possible measure. Now, I will request the committee to go yet further with me upon one more point with regard to the funds , which I think to be highly pr ac ti ca l i n i ts character, and which I beg to commend to thei r p ar ti cu l ar attention. I have used every means in my power to analyse the means in which the funds are held. In old times there was a very general belief in the existence of hobgoblins. [An hon. member exclaimed, in a tone of earnestness, which Occasioned much laughter, "Of what ?"] Of hobgob lins (the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, amid renewed laughter), and now throughout the country you May here and there find those who have a somewhat analogous conception of an awful being they call the fund holder, whom they picture as rolling in wealth, and living in worthless indolence upon the toil and sweat of his country,Allear, and a laugh)—but it is very difficult to find out whether the existence of this monster is a fact or a fiction. I cannot obtain a complete analysis of the man ner in which the funds are held. The State, as we know, has no knowledge upon the subject. The Bank of Eng land, which pays the dividends, knows only one circum stance, and that is whether the dividend is paid to a joint account or a sole account. A very remarkable change has been taking place of late years in the m a n ner i n w hi c h th e funds are hld. About 15 years ago the funds were chiefly hold in sole accounts by.individuals, and I think you may, upon the whole, take it nearly for granted that the sole accounts indicate—and I speak in the presence of practical authorities—absolute property, with some few, exceptions. So lately as 15 years ago much more than one:half of the stocks were held in sole accounts, and therefore represented absolute property ; but mark the change tqat has taken place. At present it is otherwise. The whole amount of stock held in sole accounts is at the present moment 280,000,0001., and out ofthat about 60,000,0001. represents the incomes of persons who are exempt from the income tax by reason of their incomes being under 1501. a-year. There is, therefore, a :sum of about 220,000,0001. held by persons who may be' considered as holding perpetuities in the funds, and whom the reformers of the income tax would regard as entitled to the distinction of exemption from that tax. Now, the amount held in joint accounts was in February, 1852, 427,000,0001.—(hear, hear)—and I have no doubt that it is at this time much more. One-third of the funds, upon the whole, are held in sole accounts, and two-thirds in joint accounts. Now, what do these joint accounts mean ? I will tell you very nearly what they mean. These joint accounts may be divided, I believe, into five classes, one or other of which may be taken as in cluding very nearly the whole. In the first place, the joint accounts include a large class of charities, comprehending the great account of the Commissioners of the National Debt for savings' banks, amounting to 33,000,0001. These suing are all by law exempt from income tax. Then; in the second place, we have the Chancery and Bankruptcy accounts, amounting to between 50,000,0001. an d 60,000,0001. I don't imagine that it is the desire of this committee, or of the reformers of the income tax, to lay upon the moneys locked up in Chancery and Bankruptcy an exceptional tax. A third class which enters into the joint accounts is made up of those cases in which English firms—particularly banking firms also—hold large sums of money on account of foreigners. I imagine that; although Englishmen who have investments in the funds very cora , monly hold them in their own names, it is very common for foreigners to have stock held in the names of their banking or mercantile correspondents. It has been a po pular doctrine to tax the foreigner, but I think that no person in this house would wish to tax the foreigner in this particular form. It has been .a long-contested ques tion with respect to income tax in England whether the foreigner is not entitled to exemption altogether. The late Sir R. Peel subjected him to taxation in 1842, but the pro posal was strongly opposed, and I think every member of this house will agree that it would be very impolitic to lay an exceptional tax of this kind upon the foreigner. The fourth class interested in joint accounts, and a very large class too, is the class indicated by life interests less than perpetuity. When Mr. Horsman made a proposal with reference to the income tax in 1848, one of his main argu ments was founded on the absurdity of taxing life interests at the same rate at which perpetuities are taxed. Of late the income tax reformers have had much less compassion for the life-interest men, and few of them have seemed to regard their case at all. My opinion is that, if the income tax were reconstructed it would be very diffi cult to shut out the life-interest men ; but surely it would be very hard to raise the tax upon the funds as far as regards that large portion of holder s w h o h ave a mere life interest. The fifth class interested in joint accounts consists of trading companies and associations holding funded property. Now, are you to lay an exceptional tax upon the capital of persons so engaged in trade ? I should say that it is very much better to leave English trade where it is, paying 7d. in the pound, in the place of the 9d. paid by land and houses, and with the power of invest in.. 'money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes or banking, or for other trades, without the fear of excep tional taxation, than to break up the whole system, and ensconce the trader in schedule C, that you may reimburse him by exceptions in schedule D. Now, the strongest case urged for the reconstruction of the tax is the case of sche dule C • but in schedule C, against 220,000,0001. held by persons in their own right, you have 430,000,0001. not held by persons hi their own right as mere individual property, and when you have established your exceptional tax against the funds, your very next step must be to exempt the whole of this 430,000,0001. Well, that is what I have to say upon schedule C. I shall now touch very briefly upon the remaining case of schedule D—that is to say, of sche dule D as respects the professions. I have made it my business, Sir, to ascertain what proportion of the whole payment under schedule C proceeds from professional per sons, and I find that, including certain amphibious classes, it is above 300,0001., or rather more than one-twentieth part of the whole income tax ; but there are several per sons who are returned as professional persons who, for the purpose of a new classification of the income tax, must be considered as traders, such as auctioneers, house-agents, and farm-agents. The country surgeon frequently com bines with his profession the trade and capital of a drug gist and apothecary. Solicitors, again, in many places are, to no small extent, considerable capitalists ; their ca pital is invested in their trade, and the income tax must be paid upon it as it would upon capital invested in any other trade. Taking these mixed. cases out, the net sum that may be said to be paid by the professions is about 250,000,0001., which is about 1-22 d part of the whole in come tax. Now, Sir, Ido not at all deny that the case of professional men appeals to the sympathies. In my opinion it is one of the reasons which indicates that the tax ought to be a temporary tax ; but I hope the committee will pause before it rushes to the conclusion that upon account of the case of professional, men (for I think I have in some degree disposed of the other cases) they will proceed to such a labour. • I will not call it an Herculean labour, be cause an Herculean labour means a labour that Hercules could accomplish, and this I am persuaded he could not ; but to such a labour as that of breaking up and reconstruct ing the income tax. (Hear, and a laugh.) It would be a pity to find yourselves compelled to break up the income tax on account of those whose case is so limited in com parison to the whole range of the tax that they only pay 1-22 d part of the amount. But then you may say, " Why not exempt them altogether • why not give them a fa vour ?" And there is a great deal in point of feeling to re commend that ; but there is a great deal in point of feeling to recommend many things in this world of ours, upon examination of which you find insuperable obstacles in the way of giving scope to that feeling. (Hear, hear.) Now, I will tell you why you cannot exempt professional in comes without breaking up the scheme of the tax. In the first place there are the auctioneers, house-agents, farm agents, and others I have referred to, now nestling within the professions, with whom there would be considerable difficulty if there were an attempt to exclude them from benefits to which persons in the position of professional men were to be entitled. Again, you would have great difficulty in knowing what to do With the clergy. Your feeling would tend with equal force both ways. You would think it extremely offensive to reconstruct the income tax on behalf of professional men, and yet to make the clergy man with 1501. or 2001. a year pay the higher rate. (Hear, hear.) But, if you let him in, lam not so sure that you would be pleased to extend the same favour to the dean and the bishop. (Hear.) You will find the samvee certainly rt ffi ti c i ul ni ty there ; but there are other and more serious diffi cu l t i es than those. Many persons holding salaried o ffi ces—not public servants—now charged in schedule D, have a much worse tenure, and an inferior intere s t i n th eir in comesy than professional men. Above all, there is what I warned you of in respect to averaging classes. A large class of retail traders have an interest i n t h eir trades much inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and trades, and businesses ,chgaonngeetho-anandorrs mownc.hauqdm "cpkreoriessTiohneayl men, class , puttingth aside the ti case of sick arneessaaerasetauresof permanence itself exceptionalcompared with a certain de wscarirpntitobne o n f ora th m e i s t m te a e le k r e c wi las s s e tohfatt they will traders. (Hear.) I must tax, o b d r i ffi e ack gup of the income u n ty wh e n the y come t find the greatest Let m e f or a moment peut caseconsider,iitn the midst of their to of youthe annui tants.lwifheotheseadnbdy, the people are. P ro f ess i onal persons, at all events, are men charge Al mighty with the care o f w i ves an d chil dren,generally, with a capacity to duty. But when you come to life annuitants, the deal with the d your hands justice, discharge you that n desolate widow, with the orphaned daughter, with the defenceless woman, whose right it is to expect at tenderness, and protection. Are their incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady who has been bred in the lap of luxury, and who then upon the death of her parent finds herself with the interest of 5,0001. or 6,0001. to live upon for the remainder of her days. I want to know whether that is to be subjected to the higher tax as an income from realised property? Will you then tell me that upon the daughter and the widow you will lay that exceptional tax, and yet speak of doing justice, because you put the higher tax upon her in order that you may put the lower tax upon bankers and brewers, and physicians and lawyers ? (Hear.) I appeal to you as men upon this point. lam convinced, whether the views of the present Government be right or wrong, whether our propositions meet your approbation or whether they do not, that you never will consent to draw that distinction in favour of the great and energetic commerce of this country, and against the pittances on which the great por tion of these women subsist. (Hear.) Sir, the unparal leled indulgence of the committee--(cheers)—has brought me nearly to the close of this portion of the subject, and there is but one more point that I need refer to.. It is commonly supposed that it is either some crotchet of an individual, or the general, laziness and haa.ttentionpf offi-1 vial persons to th.eir duties, that prevents them giving effect to the wishes which many gentlemen laudably enter- tain to see th ese i nequa li t i es of the income tax, w hich Ido not not deny, removed by a reconstruction ; but I will selves ill' volved and out the kind of difficulty in which you find volved when you set about that work, for I can truly e tfor fairly say—and I think if Ido not command d fairll will demand full credit for them—l can truly an as an individual, yet that the characters of my er colleagues could say that it has been our most earnest desire, with justice attain that object, to consult the public a bout in regard to the proposition which we might make„. the income tax. (Cheers.) We have therefore stu_n a lotTly ,f and laboriously turned over the question again and 7 1 . '7: and have put it, I believe, in every light in which capable of being viewed ; and now I will just give yeu ar e . specimen of the way in which, when you set about a r_e 2, 1 if struction of this tax, you find yourselves involved. 0 1 . 7, 1 ; y feeling suppose that, if the income tax be differentiated, you the favour to what are called terminable annuit a s,n t The terminable annuitants expire in 1860, and they allot a favourable case for those who wish to break up thff, come tax. Of course, they will get the benefit of it. "-Lew are worth so many years' purchase, and no more, and yon can tell exactly how much represents interest and how much: capital. You p rocee d , t h en, by exempting the term i n a annuitants. Is th a t a ll? B y no means. What d o you % with Governme n t lif e annuitants ? Must you not e xem pt them also ? Is not their case substantially the same with the others? A man l ays out money on an annuity for , life. Although the term of life is uncertain, such an annuity has just as fi xe d a pr i ce i n London as an annuityot, the expiry of whi c h y ou fi x t h e date. On the same prin ciple, therefore, you mus t exempt the Government life annu i tant' as you do the t erm i na bl e annuitants ; but, if you do thst you.cannot think o f any thi ng so monstrous as taxing terests for life, or for a term upon leasehold propertle% How will you be able to tax a man who has suppose In on which he has paid a heavy fine, and of which there 1 0 _ f term of five or t en years unexpired? The great bu lk; the interest in th e p roper t y i s not his, but the landlornr% the reversioner' s , an d you must evidently give him, th e fote, a share of th e exemp ti on. Then I must again remind_d you of the class h o ldi ng lif e i nterests in the funds. can't draw a distinction between life interests in the fun ). and life interest s i n l ease h o ld s. They must help to the goodly company of exemptions. After them col• - those who hold j o i n t ures an d ot h er annuities upon Certainly, a life annuity in the funds is one thing, ant..-- life annuity upon l an d i s ano th er ; b ut the life interest the individual is alike in both cases. When you have those in, what do y ou 'do with life renters, and with successor of entailed estates, who may be a second cousle living in the E as t I n di es , w h om hi s predecessor may ne vet have seen, and in whonehe has no interest ? This may ur_ • tedious to the committee, but these are practic a l question! (Hear, hear.) Id o no t say that th er e are no di s tinctio ns between each of them. But what I say is this, that wlun i you come to define those distinctions, and to treat theme ton the broad groun d upon w hi ch you take your stand, and say, " Here you w ill b e exempt — there you will pay tm-; • exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes I ham mentioned with respect to which arguments for exemptio n might not easily be applied. The tendency of all the se exemptions, however, is the breaking up and dest r uction - of the tax. I d o no t say " re li nqu i s h ment, " because re. linquishment is one thi ng an d b rea ki ng up i s anothero_ Relinquish it for a ti me , an d w h en emergenc i es arr i ve you may do as your fathers did—take down the weapon from the shelf, and make it serve you again for the ends of duty (Cheers.) To relinquish it is altogether safe, because it i s altogether honourable. But to break it up is to e ncoursgf the Mouse of Com mons t o venture upon schemes which may look well on pap er , an d may serve the purpose of t moment, but which will end in the destruction of the tai by the absurdities and iniquities which they involve. Sia!, if that is to be do ne it mus t b e b y th ose whose conscienc e : enable them to take a different view of the character and of the destiny of this great country. It will not be don° by men who believe that, although you may enter upon that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you into cinsf; mires, will th row th e w h o l e fi nances of the empire in to confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and e ffectiv.. o resort to which hith er t o you h ave b een a b le in all times look as a course open to you in circumstances of diff i culty general and trouble. (Ch eers. ) Si r, the views of her Die ., jesty's Go vernmen t w i th respect to the income tax are, that it is an engi ne o f g i gant i c power for great national pur , , poses, but at th e same ti me th a t th ere are circumstanc e s attending its operation which make it difficult, perhaP s impossible, in our opinion not desirable, to maintain it 0! a portion o f th e permanent and ordinary finances of th° country. (Cheers.) The public._ feeling of its inequality is a fact most important in itself. ...The inquisition it ef: tails is a most serious disadvantage. And the frauds t O which it leads are evils which it is not possible to charac tense i n t erms too strong. (Hear, hear.) One thinif i i:, hope thi s h ouse will never do and that is nibble it great public questions. Don't let them adopt the plan. reconstructing the i ncome t ax to -d ay, and saying, "If tht,l, does not work well, we'll t r y our h an d s at i t again to-re°` row." That is not the way in which the relations of clasen-- - , are to be treated. - Depend upon it when you come to Cl quarters with this su bj ect, when you come to measure im see the respective re l a ti ons of intelligence and labour sit s property, and when you come to represent those relation s in arithmetical results, you are undertaki ng an operatieo which I should say it was b e y on d the power of man to e °11 " duct with satisfaction, but which, at any rate, is an oper a ; tion to which you ought not constantlyto recur ; for if, as r a i hon. friend once said very properly, this country c o uld 1 1 '; bear a revolution once a-year, I will venture to sa y that"' could not bear a reconstruction of the income ta x once a year. (Cheers, and a laugh.) Whatever you do in r e ' gird to the income tax, you must be bold, you must la t intelligible, you must be decisive. You must not pat e !, with it. If you do, I h ave s t r i ven at least to point out - I well I as myould feeble powers, will permit, the a l mos t deseeraj, ti w say, certainly the gross breach of duty' your count r y, o f which you will be guilty, in tire, jeopardising on e o f th e most valuable among all its meter" . resources. I believe it to be of vital importance, w hether you keep this tax or whether you part with it, that Y__,° l l should eith er k eep i t or leave it in a state in which it would be fit for service on an emergency, and that it will be M Y possible to do if you break up the basis of your income • (Hear, he ar .) Th en you will ask me, "On what princt „P; do y ou mean to proceed? —you have made an argamenu, far as you have gone, to show that th e t ax canno t be re;, • constructed or amended." Wh a t we w i s h t o do, an d wha t we sh a ll a i m at doing by the measure which I shall propos" is thi s : — We wish, in the first place, uncertainty respecting the income tax. (Cheers.) 161. think it unfortunate that politic 1 • t have fo r e s ircums ances the last two or three years led to a astate of doubt regare- • to put an end to the to the continuance of the tax, and have even begotten by degrees a feeling on the p ar t of the public that is about to be entr a pp e d unawares int the count''' . o it (Hear, hear.) My belief i s , th a t much of theetuity'. er * p ing that prevails is traceabl e t o th at source, a -perpetuity nd uneasy feel' r a far from thinking that the m ere asking of the a Woe to renew this tax for a given term, i n eppo • . al comm_ salon to asklutf. you to make it perpetu , would be sufficient to allay floe , anxiety or to i emoe e t u a , remove that doubt. There are a certain class of transactions with regard to which the uncertainty about the income tax tends most unfavourably —such as the ter minable annuities, for example. It is ve desirable that certainty should be restored to these transactions I thing it also most desirable that effectual measures should be taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. ut Ido so much mean to comm i t the Government to B an abstract opinion to be acted upon in future years. my own opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the tax as permanent ordinary portion of our finances. But state the wish of the Government i,to propose it as a tow; porary tax, I' do not ask you to rely on their words to bits' them or yourselves as to what you will do under all sir' to cumstances at the expi ra ti on of the term which we propose fix for its co ntinuance now. I pr o p ose b y posi tive ado ena pt, ctme to nt, by the m easures w hi c h I shall invite you t lay the ground for placing Parliament in such position that at a given period it may, if it think fit, Per u , withathat tax. (Ch eers. ) W e are most anxious to 4° what can be done, in order to meet the public feeling as to the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling we her, not only respect, but sympathy, while we do not admit' that it is our duty, as persons charged with the conguct of public affairs, to shape our measures according to all feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have examined the practical form which they are to take, and tried it by the light of our understanding. (Hear, hear.) We pro Pos e, - sir, to introduce certain mitigations into the operation of the income tax. We propose to extend the principle of commutations, which is now applicable only to trades, t° professions also. (Hear, hear.) A more important miti gation which we propose to make is this :---!There is a general feeling that a man ought to have, at any rate, the opportunity of investing the savings he may make from his income without being liable to the income tax upon them. We do not think it possible to make provisions of that kind applicable to savings simply as such. Al l we can do is to say, "If you choose to invest your savings in the form of a deferred annuity or life assurance, the premium which you may pay upon that deferred annuity - or life assurance up to one-seventh of your income shall, not be cha rgea bl e to your income tax, but may be deductea, from you r i ncome tax before it is charged." (Hear, hear.) I am not at all prepared to say that we would stop at that, if it were possible to do more. At the same time, this plan has consid era bl e recommendations. Ido not say that it will meet the case of persons who being afflicted with sickness cannot, except ruiner peculiar circumstances, insure their lives, because, unfortunately, cases of that sort it is beyond the power of the Legislature to meet. But what Ido say is this—that it is a relief which will admit of very extensive application. I cannot reckon that the reduction from the receipts of the tax in consequence of it will be less—though, of course, it is an uncertainty, when we look to the total amount of life assurance in this country—than 120,000/. a year. It establishes, however, " no invidious distinctions between one class and another. It is open to all those who choose to avail themselves of it ; but while it is open to them all, we know that practical'y the classes who are in the habit of assuring their lives are just those very classes whom it is your main object to re lieve by the reconstruction of the tax—namely, the classes of professional men and of persons who are dependent upon their own exertions. I think it will be necessary to propose that Government should itself become assurers of life. If it is to undertake that charge, as will probably* be the case, it will assure on the same principles as these on which it is now a vendor of life annuities. But while . I say that our object is to meet the public feeling as to the inequality of the tax, and while I specify these modes of goim, some way to effect that object, I have more to lay before you upon this subject. And pray understand me. Do not let me through my neglect be misunderstood, or fail to state clearly the positi on o f th e Government. What we understand to be the sentiments of the country, and what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are disposed to share in, is, that the income tax bears upon the whole too hard upon intelligence and skill, and not hard enough upon property as compared with intelligence and skill. (Hear , . hear.) I hope that I state with accuracy, not the precise measures that we propose, but the object which the re.: constructors of the in come t ax h ave in view. Well, that be their obj ec t—if th ey thi n k that at present skill and intelligence are too severely pressed, and that property under the income tax pays too little, let me remind then that they must not form their judgment of the condition of classes from one single tax, or from another single I ax, but that they must look to the general effect of the whole system of taxation. (Hear, hear.) And all I implore of them in that respect at this moment is, that they will re" serve their decision upon the question whether the Govern' ' meat proposition sufficiently meets the case of skill and intelligence, as compared with property, until they have heard me throughout, if their kindness will permit them, to do so. (Hear, he ar .) O ur proposition, then, in regard to the income tax is this :—We propose to renew it for • two years from April, 1853 , at the rate of 7d. in the pouna. The committee will recollect that I said we thought it our duty to look the whole breadth of this difficulty in the face—not to endeavour to escape it, not to endeavour to attenuate, but to settle, if the committee would enable us , the whole question of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) propose, then, to re-enact it fel two years, from April, 1853, to April, 1855, at the rate of 7d. in the pound. From April, 1855, to enact it for two more years at 6d. i n the pound--(slight murmurs)—aid then, for three more years —(laughter and murmurs from the Oppoattion benches , which prevented the conclusion of the sentence)-4 don't wonder at the laughter4-fgr three Mare ye/nat.-him APri l ' 1857, at sd. (Hear, hear.) Under this proposal th ° income tax will expire on the sth of .A.pril,llB6o, Sir,