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

speech 9f Lord Dafferin; said that he ivoUldreadily:rte agairthflthifictnitinuation of the gre*tti ° J4 4 1 ,1 n- P w i' content himself with supporting the.4p4teriaT'aihetid: rae nc. t,i;. 1 011 7 . ti be‘±Lsao - fq •• oman The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defeß44tke Catholic priesthoort.e 4,l 2 l rlti bt i"P ' upon them byThh tt aii f iwprpf ri Lonclon, and - .denia - the: necessity of inquiry .whatever. - Tlia,anke of Ltrss.ritu, bore testimony to thetgood• conduct ol the priests at ;SlEWynooth. The ,E4rl of SHAFTESBURY thought the inquiry neces-' sary, hecanSe.he believed the number of priests was in creasing, in, au /n*oe ratio to the inereasd'of population; and that if so,..he condition of the grant. Was-violated. He would,support the Eari of Aberdeen's amendment, if the commission Consisted of five Instead of three ; and moved• some verbal amendments to the amendment of the ministry. The Duke of ARGYLL supported the- amendment, a course whichle declared to be 'consistent with all his ormer. votes -and speeches. While he objected to a omraittee, 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 w oman, asserted that it amused her, and did not hurt him. He could see very little difference between the motion and amendment, but world 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 explanation 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 WINCHILSn having.replied, , The house divided, when the motion was lost by 110 to 5-3. „ , The house then adjourned. . , ' • ' 110ITSE 0p,;29M,M9N,&-(YESTER,DAY.) The SpAKEThtook the chair a few minute s before four o'clock, at Wilk& time there was a very large attendance of members. NEW MEMBER. Mr. GREENE took the oaths and his seat for Lail caster. PRIVATE' BUSINESS. The following bills were- read a third time and passed : Bognor Rahway; Ruitcorn and Weston Canal Bill ; Teignmonth Harbour and Teign Navigation ; Midland Railway (Amendment of Acts; &c.) ; Scottish ,Central Railway. _ The following bills were read a second time . Ban bridge, Dublin, Newry, and Belfast Junction Railway; Portsmouth Railway; Ambergate, Nottingham, and Bos ton and Eastern Junction Railway ' (No. •1) ; Am bergate; Nottingham, - and Boston and Eastern Junc tion Railway • (Sale , &o . ) • (No. 2) ; Ayrshire and Galloway (Smithstown and Dalmellington) Railway ; Crieff Junction Railway ' - Great Western Railway (Hen ley) ; Great Western Railway (power to run over. Shrews bury and Birmingham, '&c., Railways) 3. Great Western, Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and Shrewsbury and Ches ter Railway Companies' Amalgamation ; Great Western, Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and Shrewsbury and Chester Railway Companies (traffic arrangement); Hereford, Ross, and Gloucester Railway; Herefordshire and Gloucestershire Canal arid London and North-Western Railway ; Limerick and Foynes Railway ; London and Finsbury Improve ments and Railways, &c. ; South. Eastern Railway (Can terbury and Whitstable, ite.) ; South Staffordshire Rail way ; West Cornwall Railway ; Worcester and Hereford Junction Railway ; York, Newcastle, and Berwick, York', and North Midland and Leeds Northern Railway Com panies (Amalgamation, &c.) EASTERN UNION RAILWAY. On the motion that this bill be read a second time, Lord A. PAGET moved that it be read a second time that day six months, on the ground that the bill involved an arrangement in regard to running powers which would endanger the safety f the public. • Mr. ADA/R thought that the bill should be sent to a select committee. Mr. CAYLEY supported the bill, and. complained of the arbitrary conduct of the Eastern Counties Company to wards this railway. Mr. CARDWELL 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 fulleit inquiry should take place. Mr. WADDINGTON defended the conduct of the Eastern 'Counties Company. After a few observations from Mr. COBBOLD and Mr. G. 13ALL, The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was read a second time. TAUNTON ELECTION. Sir G. GREY reported that this committee had deter mined that _Mr. Arthur Mills ,was not 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. HEADI.A.M reported that this committee had come to the resolution that Mr. Charles Gavanr 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 commission of inquiry regarding the state of the Corporation 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 admini•=tration 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 bo no objection to the commission of inquiry into the working of the city po lice. With regard to thesecond queition, 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 fora 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 been "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,there, will be any objection to lay that document on the table of the house. Lord 0,, - 13. - UgSELL said that a piotesthad been received but he could not 24 whether it couhrbe 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 Seoretary "of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of any instr actions issued to Sir Everard 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 thit no report had yet been re ceived on tho 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 parliament, any measure to "aboli s h or rev i se the " lain 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 distributing 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 AC- 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 raeasure on this subject this session, but a measure would be intrOdutied next session. Mr. PETOltsked the Memberfor the:city of London if it Was they intention of the Government to proceed with the second 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 Sal fora Education Bill ? fiord .T. BAYSSBLt said it was not his intention to Pro ed''with the bill until after - Whitaiintide, when he hoped the report of the committee on the Manchester and Salford Education Bit would be laid on the table. In answer to Mr. DivErT, WILSON said that. the officers of the Mint were using.every endeavour to meet ,the demand for small silver, but the demand fcr.gold coin:beinc , so great, it was inipos aiblofor them to issue more coin. '''The amount of money 1441 out weekly was 660 , 0001 7 ,: a much greater amount than had ever been issued befcre. - , • NEW - ZEALAND COMPANY. .In answer to Mr. H. BAILLIE, Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that, as the papers which had been laid before the house relative to the charges which had been made against the, New Zealand Company fully bore out those charges, he saw no' reason for asking for a further inquiry this session. • HE • BUDGET On the Motion for going "into Committee of Ways and Means Petitions were presented . by Lord Hotham, Mr. Bright, Peto, Lord Dit Stuart, for different medical socie ties ; by Lord StaantelezeYt.and other honourable gentlemen, 'praying for an it bears upon ,e4:11 of the income tax so far as from Stockport, against incomes ; by Mr. Kershaw, for .I , h e e taxes on knowledge ; by Mr. Ewart praying ; by tiolleyeal of the duties on butter and cheese Hmalatracontdirth,opfsr;omby Mr. peal Isle of Wight,. against the duty on °ebbe+, and Mr. Manes, for a re- Gaskell, Mr. Home, Mr. peal of the certificate tax. Twe house then went into eonaMittee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose • Esaid—The annual exposition of the financial st a t e and and pro spects o f thi s coun t ry, upon or di nary occasions, affords abundant material 3 of interest to this house and to the country, and of anxioty to the person charged with the' reparation of that exposition ; but on the present occa- Men, Perhaps, that , intere4 on the one hand, and, certainly, ihat'aniiety on the other, are greatly enhanced by a var i e t y of pirownstances , including among them the nun a b er . o f. 71106ORs.which have recently been made in this house, in the increasing ea,gernesS'of the people with respect to financial 'question's. (Hear, hear.) Political events, O, have egfeeNe:d or overthrown Admimstra ji;i 425' bons, JA I.ons, hich have made it necessary to adjourn from year to year questions of taxation, have likewise greatly . accumulated on the present Government the task with skt those : heyhave to discharge in that regard ; and in connexion of : questions there have of late been raised g d , i7 t u h lio fir ns s nature most deeply interesting , desceOn t to the first •anieprinciples on which men are united in society. ntary principles of taxation, andvalm e 7 v s ilised , (Hear, hear.) With a task so formidable be tg tfhoreeemome,nilltfteeeel sz g ec e i n al ee, appeal starran p tet In d ad es d s re s e n si d ng in a d ; for their n n for lam certain that only by their kindness and indulgence, can I be enabled — I Will - not say to discharge the taslcas it ought - to be die , charged, for . thatis:f wholly beyond my' power---but to "dieje • charge it so-as in any case to be at least 'intelligible to My' hearers'. (Hear, hear.) The - first !portion of my duty will be to lay before the committee the account of - the country. . . I think I• shall best discharge 'it bytaking np 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 51,625,6001., and in the month of December,* 1852, when the right honourable gentleman had occasion 'to return to the subject, he was able to pre eent to us an estimate which placed the revenue of the year at 51 % 3 2 5 001., 'exhibiting an increase upon his estimate in April amounting to not less 'than .700,0001. And new, 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. gentleinan then judiciously estimated at 62,325,000/. amounted to no, less, when We reached the termination, of the year, than 53,019;0001:, stewing an increase of 4,464,000/. upon the .estimate formed , it.the commencement of the year. (Hear, hail%) The 'expenditure of the last year, .estimated by the' i,glit lion.- gentleman • Opposite on the - 30th:of. April, 1852;;Was , taken at 51,163,0001., but theactuatexpenditure has only reached' to. 50,782,000/., and. : ceniequentlY you have had figures presented to you in the balanee-Sheet which must have been gratifying to every member of the committee in showing a surplus of income over the expen to 'the amount of 2,460,000/. (Hear ; hear.),. That, having•reached this point, by smooth and easy progress; it, iseioiv my duty to entreat hon.geutleinen ,to make large deductions from. the very, sanguine . estimate—so sanguine: as, considering the quarter, from which it came, to excite my surprise—that because our balance yields 2,400,000/. of surplus, therefore : we have that .sum available y for re mission of taxation. That would be a toe precipitate in ference, Unfortunately, before -we arrive at that conclu sion, there is one circumstance rather:material to examine, and that is- , --what is the estimated amount of expenditure of the' year that we have just commenced ?. Well, when I look - to that, and compare it as, estimated, and as it appears on the votes before the house, with the 'estiniates of the last year, I find it stands , aafollows :—The expenditure for 1852.53 was 50;782,000/. ; but the expenditure for 1853-54, the great bulk of which is already voted, and upon which I can anticipate, on the whole, no diminntion„ amounts to 52;183;000/.- Therefore, withaut 'going into other par ticulars, which, • I am -Berri, to say, occasion a fur ther deduction from . the • surplus of 2,460,000/.; I beg, to point out • that no lees *than" 1,400,0001., nearly three fifths of that_ surplus, are already' , disposed of by the charges to which yon. are liable under acts &Par liament; by the votes which the house has come - for the de fence of the country, and by the 'Charges on account of the miscellaneous services, -which; I apprehend, this house will not: be inclined to refuse or to dimmish.'..(Ffear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman opposite, in. Deoember, 1852, esti-; mated as follows ;hisurplus for the present . year took a total aim of 1,600,0001., -s of which I think lie stated that, on the ordinary revenue "he'would venture to taitici-. pate a surplus • amounting to bet Ween 1,300,0001.' and' ' .1,400,000/:, and by decrease of Charge for, the Kafir war a sum of 209,0001, or 300,0001. 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 be the sum: en.00;0001., which he proposed to apply to light dues and, purposes connected with shipping, and 600,000/. 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 for the year within these limits.l shall now state to the house how that Surplus - of 1,600,0001. has been swallowed. The increaseon the navy estimates, including the packet servide, as voted in 1852,, and as we found. it prepared for thiS year (making the corn; parison With the.estimate of APril, 1852, not inchiding the supplemental vote of December), amount's to 617,6031. The increase on the army and . eoraniissariat,' but 'almost -en tirely onthe commissariat, is 90,000/. ; and that increase on the commissariat is t o be ae,Coniitedfor 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 ter 200,0001., which is 'easen 'tielly retrospective, we have likewise - to submit vote for - 70,0001. in commissariat expenditure, .which in' its charac ter is prospective, and analegeu.stO our ordinary estimates. So the' durable expenditure, ai'far "as the Cape is con cerned, is charged on the service 'Of the present year. 'The increase on the ordnance is 016;000/. 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 530,0001. 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 slim of 100,000/, added to the votes during 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 1,600,000/ for the finan cial year of 18534, the augmentations of charge, princi pally voted already and in part yet'to come, amount to no less than 1 T ,654,000/. 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' oontraet service,.. it has beirk''our most anxious 'desire to see what, consis-, tently with justice, was to be done to amend the position , of the public, think that the iireount,of charge which that servidefir t :d - reached, is wholly disproportionate with „the benefit-deriv,ed. (Cries of ` Hear.'-') , lam not at pre-. io,. Canditi,on to lay' he estimate flielable; or to state exactly what the estimate will be, 'but I venture to :anticipate atany ratefar the • first year, -We may be able to effect a saving on it' of not re§s than '75;0001; • There — will also be a. saving, on the ; charge, for - E-xchecjimr-bidS, owing , to the diminution of interest, amounting to aboirt 65001., and there will, be a surd - which, the house must Observe is oce4slonalln its nature, - of 1*,000 ? ., arising out of repay . ments.to the Crown revenues, and available under the pro, viaions of the law as ways and , means, in' consequence of ,the . b . i4 passed by the house reference to metropoli tan ithprovenients ; and also there - wilt - be produced 'a sum, by the liberation of the Crown revenues from a:charge which heretOfere affected thein on the same -account, to , the extent Of abOut 27,000 t. These various items will give a fund amounting to about 301,000/. I will now state. more • particularly to •• the cetrunittee the items of ,anticipated revenue and expenditure of the - noun try from which they will see 'PreeiselY tliiitainatitit of the surplus we have to deal with. 'I shOuldit the "outset ex plain that. I think it.would be `convenient that I 'should, in , ,all caSea, disregarding minute inaccuracies, give the 'sures in.reundnuMhers. T will now. present to . the *corrimittee: an account of the'estimated revenue and eeiPendittire for the year 1853-54.. With' regard to the expenditure, the charge forth e funded debt is pit down at'27,500,000/., and the charge for theunfunded`debt at 304;000/., *making s„,total. for, the, debt of 27,804„000/. The ehargesen the , consolidated fund will be 2,503,000/. ; the army estimates, .16,025,0001 ;* the navy, 6,235,0001., not including the packet: service ; the Ordnance estimates, 3,053,000/. '• miscellane ous, 4,476,0001..; . 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 800,000/. 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;0001. • Excise, 14,640,000/. ; .stamps; 6,700,0001.; taxes,-3,250,006/. ; and income tax, 5,550,000/. From the Postolltce we expect 900000/. ' and frOni the Crown lands, , swelled. by 'the' addition , I - have alree,dy . referred , to, 390,000/..• from miscellaneous, sources of receipt (including, 390,0001..; from being the capital Of the Merchant Beauien's riiild, out of WhiCh we 'shall haVe to pay 80,000/. during the present year bn account of pensions, and !the whole of the remainder, I need not say, will be absorbed . . long before that charge for pension deases)46expect about.' 320,0001.,' and tibia old stores 460,00014 . TO these I yen- • ture to add, though the items is necessarily one of tuieer tainty and 'conjecture, ;that I anticipate a saving of no Lisa than 100,000/. from, the ,operations which, have been pro-. posed to the,house in connexion with the exchange and ret demptiOn tato*. It may,.certainlY, be.leSii, and it may, • on the other hand, be more----the'final result, I hope, C will show a considerable savingc I venture now to take credit for 100,000/, on that account. Adding up, then, these va rious items, the Committee will find thatthey give a total estimated income for the - . year of 52,990,000/. against which we have. t o se t th e t o t a l estimated (expenditure . of 52,183,0001., showing an apparent surplus: of 807,000/- • Anxious, above ell, to avoid raising Undue expectations; I am desireusto impress On the committee 'that •it must - t• bear in mind that out .of this sum of - 800,0001. an amount of 215,000/,' consists of moneys whidh do not proceed' from laeithanent or' recurring sources; - but of moneys' due simply to the year, and not to be repeated. Like- wise, with -the tuieettainty connected with' the items for the packet-serviee and for the Channel Islands' harebours, on which .my , :right hon,.friend at the head of the Admiralty atid•llare-not quite sure whether we can or • cannot venture to make a reduction in the sum printed in the estimates, it is possible that the surplus I have men tioned may not be realized- to the extent of 100,000/. Therefore, it will be More - secure - fot• the c ommittee to assume that the surplus, instead of 800,000/., will be 700,0001., and to bear in mind that 215,000/. out of it con sists-of occasional payments. At the same time, while giving this explanation by way of citation, my sanguine hope is that we shall realise a surplus of 800,000/. This is the state of, the account of the country, as I have endea voured to bring 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 1842 up to the present time, we have been deriving free), the ineome4ax.• However the income-tax has at lualiii.tgotieTseen. t lly expired,..ank .it. Will be-for the coin troPuble talat:coe'lobnAmi on a detailed em li c l ti e t r lte whether. frr, not they . shall revive it. Government with committee - at s a e, fr m a e id le t n h g a t t .h b f e or ir e iYi v d e u n t t y u t r o e eve n e u t ' o t u a s p e i x .e p e e t t e t t io iv n e of fia th a e ne v e i , T h w e o re f t ar h e e a t t f ilt f 4 t l li t ir,6 *. tatieh I' ' briefly advert on,ace,ount eatanent st. of has interest • the h o m.t f predecessorpfezn.een lOll-ienaYAteectotpffileeed in n t o h we fi ffu n The t fir a particular class. , Now,' as menu w b i i i . " ea ' dy. mule by ma horse knows t f h r e ol p n re a s s i t d a e t fi e t7 „ I.l3l.ajesty's Governmeat of the Board •OP Trade," m y ri g h t propose to afford what they rust will b e f oun d eeneuel.-.- able, benefit and reliefto that interest, without inflicting sin annual, charge upon 'the public. (Hear.) But there was another interest mentioned by the right hon. gentleman oppesitelMr. Disraeli) - which has so much claim upon the general sympathies of the house, that respect and consider atiOn demand that I shbuld not leave it without men tion ; I mean that which 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 requisition) which that interest has preferred. With regard ton redue-' tiob -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 Trea.sury (Mr. . Wilson) will take a future occasion of entering more at large . into that, question ; but I regret 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 satisfactery 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 Governuient that they might entertain a sangnine 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 helm, because it is :by enabling them to economise the. heavy expenditure of their own governuients- 7 -(hear)—a heavy_ and now in many cases almost a ruinous expenditure. the case of Jamaica, for exaniple, there is a public debt,. the ininimum rate Of interest upon which is 6 - per - cent,. and the maximum 10 per cent., the capital - of the debt amounting to about 500,000/. ; and 'if it were possible for the:Government to - induce the Assembly of - .Japiaics, to amend the vicious. constitution of that island,: and to' place it ;ripen a foundation that would give scope for a strict 'cow: •trol oyer expenditure, her -Majesty's 'Government would then he disposed to recommend to this house to-employ the great of this country in si;guarantee for 'the island - of Ja maica. (Hear.) rasyliot now inquire whether that would entail a charge upon you ; I believe -it would entail none: r'vkiald be the first to assert that there should be the 'tar Most jealousy as to the - interposition of • the - credit of - this country between debtors and creditors out. of this country '--(hear)—but, considering all that has happencidio the West Indies, considering'the effect that British 'legislation has had in precipitating their difficulties, I 'do believe 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 Jamaica,• which presents at this moment by far the most urgent case of dis tress among the Wed India colonies: ' ram not sure that - there is any other among those colonies which would be in a condition to reqUest a similar interposition—(hear)—if they did, it would depend Upon the case they showed.- I• do_not think it likely that such a case will arise; all I mean: '•t,o say at the present moment is,' that the - door would not be absolutely shut against theni. pass on now from 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 Deeetaber last, it Was evidently the ditty of her'Majestfis Governinent to make a ftill investigii-, tion into the transactions of that board. We have instituted that investigation —we have presented the results in print to the house—they are in a form so simple that an inspection occupying only a few minutes will exhibit them to anyhon. member. It appears from the figures there presented that,' after debiting the Exchequer Loan Fund-I won't say with every folly of Parliament, but-with every questionable or ambiguous grant that was made—after charging thewhole of this to the last farthing, yet such has been the sound discre tien exercised by the members and officers. of that board in the loans they have made, that while they have afforded an immense amount of local accommodation, they have like wise realised, after paying every expense that belongs to the o ffi ce, a net balance of not, less than .227,3 001. , - Gear) —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 1,000,0001. 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 miralty, in December last, in regard to the Exchequer Loan Fund, are justified by the facts- 7 -(hear)--L-and it is not our intention to propose the abolition of 'that system, Which We think has been-both liononrable to those who have ad -ministered it, and highly-beneficial to the country. (Hear.) I now approach a difficult portion of the task that I have to - perform—the discusiion 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 visihle property, of, per haps 6d. in the pound, and another . a. system of li censes 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 suchthere be, who are prepared to recommend the immediate aban-. donment of the income tax. Such is not the-recommenda tion- of her Majesty's Goverment. 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 aro too apt to measure the importance of the subject by the simple fact that we draw from this tax 5,500,0001. 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 ar: preciate the income tax you 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)—yon 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 ba,ckupOn :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 Air; Pitt on that dc -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 he - 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 easemblies have existed, I doubt whether any man ever heard adisplay of this natiire equally astonishing for its 'extent; its , precision, and the talents of its author. - It is not a speech" spoken by the 4 , 11- . idster ; it is a complete course of 'public' edonciiiTy ; a work,- and one of the finest Works;" upoii practieal and theoretical finance that ever distifiguiShed the pen of a philosopher rid statesman. We may add this statement to the learned re- Searches of such men as- Adam Smith, •• Arthur Young,- ,rid Stuart, whom the Minister honoured with his quotations, t' , (Hear, hear.) I do, not know whether this committee 'are aware how much the country owes to "the former income - tax, but, because r deem it to-be-of vital inipertance that you should fullyappreciate the power of this cohisaal 'en'- gine of finance, I will venture to place before you, in what I think an intelligible, and a striking form, the results which it once achieved. I will draw the' cemparisen be tween the mode *which -your burdens were met during that period of the war when you,liad nie income tax—dur ing that period-of the war when. yen _had the incometax in, a state of half-efficiency--'-and dittingthat _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 of our.'debt—(llear - , hear)--but it is not too much to .84 that it is demonstrated . by the figures that it ,need not' at this' Moment have ex _isted if there -had beedthe resolutions to submit to' the income tax at an earlier peripd. (Hear.) This te s t I think you wit admit is . a fair one - together the whole charge of government and war, together with the ch a rge of so much of the national debtas had accrued before 1793, so as to make (if I may so express myself) 11, fair start from -1793. (Hear, hear.) The charge of government and war, together with the- charge: of debt-incurred :before 1793,= amounted on the average of thesix years down to . 1798 to 36,0 10,0001. a-year : the revenue of that period,, with all the additional taxes that were laid on, amounted to' 20,626,0001. a-year ; there was, therefore, an annual excess' of charge above revenue—charge for goyernment, war; and debt contracted before.l793, including - the _charge Of debt . contracted since 1793—0 f 'no less than 15,404,0004 (Flear,) In 1798 you just appreciate the income tax, 'and ininiedi ately a charge-begins.. In the foursyears from 1799 tcilBo2 the charge for the same items that I have mentioned,Which had been 36,000,000/ rose to 47,413,0001. - a-year.; 1)10 the revenue rose to' a-year, and the excess for those four years was - diminished by about 2,000,0001. a-year instead of au annual excess of 15,400,0001-over revenue, it was 13,689,0004 - 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 froni 1806 to 1815, together with the charge upon the debt contracted before 1793, was 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 15,404,0004 a-year, or (as it was in the second period) 13,689,000/. 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 2,004,0304,- 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 65,791,0001. of charg e that I have mentioned, ab o ut 9,5(0,0004 were due for charge of debt contracted before 1793, so that if you compare the actual expense of govern me:it 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 7,000,0004 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 hold .to be quite a different question,. -and I will go into. that - by, and by -it affords you the means should- unhappily ?hostilities again break out, of at once raising your army to.3oo,ooo,andycair fleet to 100,000,with all. your establishments- -in proportion:, (Hear, hear.) And, much as may be -said of ' the" importance—in which I concur -= of an army reserve and navy reserve, and of having your dockyards and y our arsenals well 'stored, important say this fiscal reserve is no less (hear, hear) ; for,- if it be used aright, it iaaneng*, _which ou maY re" sort, and with which,' pal - Cloudy eliPloyed, -- if unhappily. 'fig I T (T. 0 c l Ir7o L N NIN G, APRIL 19, 1853. necessity arise—which may God 'in His mercy avert (hear, portions of the payments to be made by different classes, hear)—with it judiciously employed you mayagain ; if need and' where they are to end. (Hear, hear.) If it be de he, defy the world- (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") This, sired to settle the question according to the views which then is the purpose which the. income tax has served— have pressed themselves on the minds of many moderate - that in the time of vital struggle, it enabled you to raise and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the the income of the country above 'its expenditure of war right hon. gentleman opposite, and by my hon. friend the -and civil goyernment (hear), and that service so performed member for Wiltshire in committee—namely, by making was Performed at atime when. men do net minutely in- land Eay about 4cl. and precarious income about 3d., then I quire into the incidence of - taxation ; they do not then • say that object is accomplished, for the payments of the two indulge themselves in the adjustment of details ; but are classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment. afraidsleait a they should lose .the mass and the substance. But let us go further in the 'consideration of this vastly im- Altersaaaltear e ) Rat times when the hand of violence is let. portant, question. ' I protest against the doctrine of those loose, and when whole plains are heitheared with carnage, who" propose fa do justice between the two kinds of income are the times when it is desirable that you shoUld have the by establishing average classes in each kind. That is the power of resort to this mighty engine, to ,make it again course . advocated by hon. member for Montrose. The available for the defence and *salvation of the country. hon. Member is always con - siatent a and always manful ; (Hew', hear.) Well, sir, the income ta x d ro pp e d a l ong an d w h en h e sees a difficulty he takes no pains to avoid it. with the purpose of the income tax in 1816. But it was (Laughter.) His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of aleatined to be revived. Sir R. Peel, in 1842, called forth artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war, tax, into difficulties which . a nian acting as a tactician to 'come - and assist - our industrious toils in peace (hear, would' avoid. The common notion was that incomes hear) ; and if the first income tax produced enduring and should be classed in avera g es. In the name of re ason an d memorable results, so lam free t o sa y, a t l ess expend i ture common sense I ask, how these who demand equality can 'by far in money, and without those painful accompani- obtain it by averaging classes of income ? Look at an ments of havoc, war, and bloodshed (hear, hear)—so has 'unities. -The tables give the value of female life at 15 the second income tax. The second income tax has been years of age at 25 years' purchase, but go upwards to 70 the instrument you have introduced, and which, I hope, or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only five ere long you may perfect, the reform—the effective reform years' purchase. Yet 'you propose to average these dissi of your commercial and fiscal system (hear, hear) ' • and I, miler classes—t o b r i ng up th e va l ue o f f i ve years ' purchase . for one, am bold enough to ,hope an d t o expect that, in and bring down 'the value of the 25 years' purchase. ' reforming your own fiscal and commercial system, you What possiblaaaatesrage - can - these - -interests admit of? A have laid the foundations of similar reforms—slow per- life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of ' haps, but certain in their progress—through every country five years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life 'of the civilised world. (Cheers.) I say therefore, sir, of five years' purchase, when called on to pay three times : that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with •as much as he ought that the life of 25 years' purchase pays it we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and . only half as much as he should do ? (Hear, hear.) Still for (C the he er s ih a .a) ni immediatelyn iLoiye has o n a r use England, me now egn i el t ona wn n t d - i h a, attemptey and means h ave u l e tt n ei ofi : fs m oaf uya o n r nt e ydh a a t thb tradessai absurd r manydt the aeme would wattret ear icr b i hee thetrades ryee closely asaretelt,yem better, attempt n purchase.to the investigatedaveragelwhviotelnetrades.w:iirltleh ahineo In imay tailed,aatyeiey console nbt achievingyso 13 greati t m e h a e recollection gino ourselves (eid. interests,ttht leeicnh present to the committee a closer analysis of this duty. I perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords oppor : shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the tunities for providing for children 'and relations such as no aer charges dispenseitsstha that are composition.wa r it e b theor brought Letgihn t , Government, that we cannot at the present moment, with other pursuit presents. (Hear, hear.) Let us, however, the th2asn casefi five, years' m, four, odue purchaserr , a . t o e rly three h; re andthere e s raey years' a t rh. are others 0 purchase,ish , e i w a t o a o r te r t e h ' a due regard Let ii the public lookst iinvestigate tea h am not one of those who make light of those are you to average the' interest of a trade worth three - a ray _own individual opinion, it is and another worth .25 years' purchase ? I must enter my againstu c ee h s a m r e ge l x_ i . . attempt ( H t L l o e a r . ) e e m rs e nt trades d e w s worth perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax protest against this averaging of classes. There is another was put an end to at the termination of the war, that it topic of a painful nature connected with this branch of the is not well adapted fora p ermanen t portion of your finan- subject,' to which I must briefly allude. We have seen cial system. (Hear.) Whether it is so or not, on which that land pays 7d. in the, pound according to a stardard there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on of value which does not depend on the will or testimony all hands agreed—that it is not adapted for a permanent of its owner. (Hear,, hear.) Trade, on the other hand, portion of your,fiscal syst em , un l ess you can, by recon- pays 7d. in the poundassessed by each trader himself. struction, remove its inequalities. (Hear.) Even if you (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that, in the majority of could remove its inequalities, into which we will patiently instances the returns of the traders are fairly and honour examine, there would still remain in my mind objections ably made. There, are many cases, in trade, in which it of thasgetivestscharacter. - (Hear, hear.) The reconstruc- is a matter 'of extreme difficulty to know what return to tion of your income tax•would, I think, under any circum- make, and I belie - Ve ' that in these eases the doubt is stances, be found to Open up social questions of the most solved by the honourable trader 'against himself, and that serious import ; and the machinery of the income tax, in- he returns his piofits greater than they really are. Let volving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the objectionable principle of self assessment, in my opinion, trading classes of England generally the conduct which can never be satisfactory to. the country. (Hear, hear.) is pursued by some individuals. I am .going to state an First, because self assessment leads to grievous frauds extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been ' upon - the revenue, and renders th e rea l i nequa lit y o f t h e generally done, but of what can be and has occasionally' tax more trying than any of.those inequalities which im- been done. I will mention no names—l will 'violate no mediatelY strike the 'eye and feelings ; and, secondly, be- confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town cause ofthe tendencyto, immorality, which is, I fear, essen- where a new street was built. The persons who lived and tially inherent in the nature of the operation. But now let carried on business in the old street, which was pulled us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let down to make. way for the new one, had been charged a me observe that we are too much in the habit of speaking of certain amount to the income tax. They had, also, of this impost as merely a simple tax ;it is rather a code or course, made returns to a certain amount under the income' system of tax a ti on . I n mere b u lk it i s a vo l ume ;it h as tax. When the new street came to be built they claimed , been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive, compensation for the loss of their business. The amount' years ; it combines a large mass of precedents: and in short had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the corn it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which mittee with details, I will, state the amount of compensa we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,000/. a tion which these persons—in 'number 28—claimed ; the year. One-twenty-eighth part of this sum is 200,0001. Now, amount awarded 'them_ byathe jury, which may be taken' if you investigate the composition of schedule A, you will as, on thewholea an approximation to the real value.; and find that land and houses—which I take together, because the amount at which they returned their profits under the their position is substantially - analogous—including the in- income tax. 'Were I to descend to individual cases, it comes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and set- would be almost impossible adequately to describe the tlements, pay no less than 12.28ths of the tax, or about partly l u di crous an d par tl y s h ame f u l aspec t w hi c h th ey 2,400,0001. Now, let us look at the other great element of assume. I will,'thereforo, deal with the matter generally, this tax, namely, the payment that proceeds from trades. and say that! the 28 persons claimed the sum of 48,1591. as In order to get at this payment accurately, we must de- compensation for their profits for a single year. The scend a little deeper than the mere classification of the amount of Compensation awarded by the jury was 26,9731., schedules. There are in sehedule A some considerable or a little more than half what was claimed ; but what was classes of property which pay duty along with land and the amount at which they returned their profits for assess houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 27,0001. a ment to 'the income tax,? They claimed 48,0001. ; they got year, which are essentially trading concerns. For the imp. from the jury nearly,27,ooo/. ; but the return of profits for pose which I have in view I must likewise take out of ache- assessment to the income tax 'which they 'separately made dole B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place amounted only to'' 9,000/. (Much laughter.) I deeply it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous regret that the great body of honourable men who have in character. This gives me 330,0001. more, and then I made the name of British commerce famous throughout come td' what I may call trades proper—namely, those the earth; even more for its truthfulness than for its energy, which appear in schedule D, and which pay a sum of should be degraded by association with persons who could something like 1,200,000/. These three branches of trades perpetrate frauds like these. (Hear, hear.) But at the in schedules A; B, and D, contribute an income of no less same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do than 1,800,0001., or 9-28ths of the whole tax; and the two exist; they are inseparable from the character of the im togethera-that is to says land and houses and trades, 21-28ths of the whole tax. There remain when you are called upon par r post,-human,nature remainin_gas it is; and it is impossible. 4,200,0001., le r to consider - the question of the the fund& in schedule C, - which pay 750,0001., or I.7th of yeadjustment of the tax wholly to dismiss them from con the whole tax, and salaries in schedule E, which pay about eideratiene . Now sir; I leave 'this part of the que s tio n 1-17th of the tax. P ro f ess ions in schedule D, a ft er s t r iki ng w ith this p ro position, which I think will hardly be contro out those which partake rather of the character of trades, . verted—that as regards the state of the case between: land pay 250,0001. ; or -about 1-22 d -of the tax. Thus, we see, and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration, the funds, salaries, and professions make up tl e remaining there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction 4th. 'of the' tax--three-fourths being paid by lands and of the income tax: (Hear.). I have three other cases still houses and by trades. It is said that gross inequality is to consider . • and first I will take th e case o f sc h e d u l e E, .the characteri s ti c of the tax, and that it ought no t t o b e w hi c h contains the paymeets th a t are derived from the in levied —that it i s unjust' to tax precarious and realised in-.. comes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that conic alike. What income is precarious, and what income no class of persons is included in schedule E, with the ex is realised? Income - derived from trade would, I presume, - eeption of persons connected with the Bank of England; be called precarious ; and, without wishing t o an ti c i pa t e 'who may not be ca ll e d, i n one sense or ano th er , p u bli c ser the ' judgment of th e committee, I may probably assume vents. - - Some of them may be servants- of local or separate that this is their Opinion. Observe that, after all, the main authorities, as for instance the 'East India Company, but question is between lanct and trade. - Everything else, in they are generally. .servants of her Majesty's Government. reaped of bulk and magnitude, forma but a mere outline pf Now, with respect to the case of ' these public salaries, I - this, the main question. Land and houses, we find, pay think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such an income tax of 2,400,0001., and trade pays 1,800,000 e ; in c om e s an d life incomes. As they are usually held almost betareba them they pay' three-fourths o f th e w h o l e t ax . It for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is is, therefore, evident that the justice of the 'present rela- little inferior to that of life income s ; an d th e i r i n f er i or it y, Lions between l a nd an d t ra d e mus t go a considerable—l do in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by noh,say the whole—way towards the solution of the gre a t this—that they are usually progressiye incomes, while life Aueition,..whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not. incomes are fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dis- Let us, then, look at the tax as it stands between land and passionate man to draw a distinction between the case of houses and trade, and if the committee will do me the fa- salaried and life incomes. With regard to remissions upon your' to follow me in the estimate lam about to enter upon, salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways. it shall be ray endeavour to place the matter before them At present there is a movement among the civil servants of in as clear a, light as, possible. My first object is to show the Crown for a change, in regard ao their superannuation the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The that realised and precarious incomes ought to pay different tide has but lately turned, for it is not very long since the rates, and that therefore the tax ought to be reconstructed, right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) made a they forget to inquire whether at the present moment rea- motion in this house—and, unleas lam much mistaken, he lised and precarious incomes, as represented by land and all but carried it—for redu c in g sa l a ries of this description houses on the one hand, ant - I:by trades on the other, do not 10 per cent. Now, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that pay different rates. Let . us, in the fir s t pl ace , see a t w h a t suc h sa l ar i es ought' to be reduced by 10 per cent., I would rate land and houses pay. _Land pays in the gross 7d. in the suggest that it would. be better to reduce them by a little pound upon an income nor, assessed by the possessors, of less than,lo per cent. rather than break up the income tax the property, but by strangers independent of them, and on this account:; but it would be much better to deal this snail is paid witho u t an y, th e sma ll es t , d e d uc ti on ' i n with public salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a respect of the difference bet ween gross and net inmate. separate ; arrangement, th an t o m ake them th e occas i on (H - ear, hear.) •It is obvious that, in order to estimate aan attempt to perform an 'opeiation which,' up to this how much land and hous es rea ll y , pay, we must dedlet time, a those who have been aespOnsible have unani the:Whale of the diffeien ce b e t ween the gross and the mously declared to be impossible and absurd. Now, sir, net income. • Nay, we must do more than this, because I come to what is supaosed to be the sore place of the in the; owners of land and houses are not the only come taia-schedule C ; and :when the committee have perieni beneficially interested in this description -of heard what I have to say,,l will appeal to their love of property ; ' for instance, a large body of mortgage's justice, and put it to them whether schedule C, even if it encumbrancers, and life-renters, who, although they pay 7d. stood alone, is not rather a reason why they should not in the pound on their s h are o f the proceeds of land and break up the income tax than why they should do so. I houSes, do not Make Up the difference between gross and net know this 'is a bold challenge, but see whether I don't .• receipts. , In. the esti ma t e I am a b ou t to submit to the maintain my posit i on. I n th e fi rs t instance I will read to committee I have been gu id e d b y i nqu i r i es which every the comm i ttee a test i mony th a t h as come f rom a c ross th e member is as capable of making as I am. I can only *ay_ Atlantic, in order to impress upon them the conviction that that the estimate has b een f rame d i n a spirit of modera- when we approach schedule Cwe begin to tread upon very tion, andlested, as well as the case admitted, by refereace -delicate ground. We wrote to the United States, to aseer -to , persons most familiar . with the subject. About_ tarn what was done in that country, where taxes of this . 80,000,000.., the gross i ncome o f l an d an d h ousee, pay ahe• nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds, tax. At 7cl. in the p o n ie d , thi s g i ves, i n roun d 'numbers, . and I have - here a short letter, signed by Mr e Everett, .2,333,000/. ' What are the deductions which ought to be, dated " Department of State, Washington, 10th of Febru a :allowed for the difference between gross and net income,— ary, 1853," in which he says • . I will not say, according to an ar bit rar y s t an d ar d of equity " Sir,—l have the -honour .to acknowledge the receipt of —but if we ehould break up the present scheme and eon- your note of the 9th instant, inquiring, by direction of her •,etruct a new one, what should we be called on, and of_ Majesty's principal Secretary of State tan' Foreign Affairs, course I must say, what. should we in justice be compelled, whether the public debt of the United States is subject to pro to allow on this seers ?, In Scotland the difference allowed .perty or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock, b e t we en geese amid net in com e f rom l an d i s k nown b y the and also whether, in. the acts authorising the contracting of designation of ". Public .burdens." We have no analogous the debts, any provision was made, exempting' them from phrase in England ; hut.we have the burdens. The first taxation. the Governments of d States, or i n th e gi •greatitem - is the large charge for repairs, and under this - "In reply, I have the honour to inform r _ you that there i s ' head I include hedng, dit c hi ng, an d d ra i n i ng. Repairs no thi ng i n th e con stitution of the 'Unite • co nstitute a large claarge upo n l an d , b u t as regar d s h ouses l aws crea ti ng th e public debt, which . prohibits this Govern it is still larger. (Hear.) You m us t a ll ow f or i nsurance , . ment from levying a tax on that debt , and also for law charges, without w hi c h it i s i mposs ibl e t o the respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this conduct business connected with landed: property and would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which houses. (" Hear," frena• the Opp os iti on .) Y ou mus t ,is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution." allow—l wallet say a ll th e cos t of management, but as (H ear, h ear .) N ow , it appears t o me, upon a fair review . le of it as you allow to a merchant under schedule D of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admit aille must allow for clerks, sub-agents, ground-bailiffs, nd b liff you . as sa c es e stationery, receipts, and so forth. You must allow .construction to . . those words in the loan acts which provide ou -ai e a tad. on all hencla-etha e t n w d e s s a h re all bo b u e n p d ai t d o fr g e i e ve of so a m ll e ta r_ x at e i s o a n n a d l for arrears' of rent, and you must likewise allow for what is that the public dividends called abatement of rent which is a real ded uc ti on f rom . charge.sewhatsoever • I think we are b oun d t o g i ve th em a income. (`,. Hear s " from the Opposition.) How much rational m construction._ (Hear,' hear.) - Mr. Pitt thought the shall e allow under, these heads ? What is the gross de- rational construction to give them was, that you should not duction we most 'make from the inc ome o f 80,000 , 0001. _look at all to the nature of the obligation, but that you supposed to be received by the owners of land and houses ? should consider the' dividends simply in relation to the re- I take it .at 16-per cent. Ido not think this is an unfair . ceiver as so much income. lam bound to say that I think ~estimate ;. lam certai n that it is, in some instancea, a very ,Mr. Pitt's propeaal was the safest and the wisest. It has, low one. (".Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If 16 per at any rate, been acted upon for more than 50 years, and cent. be a .fair deduction, it is evident we s h ou ld re d uce under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been the 80,000,0001. subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by borrowed or reborrowed. (Hear, hear:) Ido nat mean now . the sum of 12,800,000/, which is actually expended before to urge the difficulties you might have in the case of these .the income.reaches the pocket of the owner; and, there- acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construe fore, we have arrived at this point, that we have got, in- tion, but what Ido beg you to acknowledge is, that there is stead of 80,000,000/. Of income, only 67,200,0001., and this only one other construction, in any sense rational, that reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,0001. could be given to th e w or d s its the loan acts, and it is this' (Cheers.) Then I .come to another question_upon which I mast again resort to conjectural 'estimate. What is a fair mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of —that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the' estimate, to. Make of the total amount of charges on laud the income, as tested by the price of stock when it is should . . . :and houses all over the kingdom', in respect not only of I will suppose then the propc!sition now is, that we mortgages, but of settlements and all other arrangements reconstruct' the income tax, in order that we may levythe of that kind,? I estimate that one-fourth part of lithe gross tax upon something like the capitalised value of the ie in income - derived from land and houses goes into the pockets come. Considering the circumstances under which _n- I never can believe not, of persons beneficially interested in them, properly come tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under -speaking; but into those of mortgagees and others who re- which. that change is now suggested,. ceive under settlements. If that be so,. then it appears that that it would, be a d o pted by a British Parliament. Observe the owners of land and houses do not receive 67,200,000/. ; the effect which it would hive upon the interest of the but from that reduces their income to 47,200,0001, said to those persons, "We have you Must deduct the fourth part of fundholders. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax he nothing to do with the 80, to nothing but This- sum 01 1 47,200,000/: is, then, the net receipt of those capitalised valve or with price ; we can lookthat time, when At beneficially interested in land and houses. (" Hear," from what you receive from year to year." income from year to the.Oppesatieria But you will' say the encumbrancers, the fundholder was taxed upon .his e ? Sixteen 000,9001. wh su ic m h. who receive the 20,000,0001., pay the income tax. Well, year, what was the capitalised value of his iacom value of as see What their quota amounts to. Sevenpence in the years' purchase. That was the average capitalised he income tax, until 20 MO 000/ gives 583,000/. • Deduct this sum the fundholder's income for 17 years of t pound on , , • .front. the 2,333,000/. paid by - the_ owners of l an d an d th e conclusion of peace. ' Suppose your doctrines had new houses, and.t sum he su of 1,750,000 1, will be left, and thi s i s b een i n vogue th en, ,th e fundholder would have paid only the amount ac tually paid on an income of 47,200,0001, one-half of -what he did pay ; and shall Ibe told that, If honourable members will take the trouble to apply the. after ad o ptin g o ne construction unfavourable at the moment ' figures I have stated, they will find the result to be this, to the fundholder, and after taxing him the full value o n that the ,income deeived from land and houses is taxed of his income for 17 years, when h he could onlyave got 16 . at the rate, not of 7d., but 9 d. in the pound. (Cheers years' purchase for his property on the market, England turn round upon th a t from the Opposition benches.) Then , what I want to and the English Parliament will l now 1 value o f his r e know is -thi s —supposing there be a primil facie case for man, in the manner suggested, when the ' pro breaking up the income tax on 'the ground of in equa lit y per t y h as r i sen t o 33 ye ps value of the fundholder'surchase ? If you now between the two classes of payers , namely , the owners of determine that the capitalised I say thatyou inflicted whole, and houses and those engaged in trades, do you on the income ought to be taxed, whole, think that a if difference ought to be made between the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he , the two classes, the difference ought to be greater than th a t th en con sented to confidence that peace would be . s pay 10 per cent. upon the v a l ue o f h is which restored, which now exists ? (Hear.) Ido not raise the question who. income he had b ence whatever bet ween th e that his income wouldbecome more valu a bl e, th at faith ther there ou g ht to be any dit v er two classes ; I pass the question y , b • but I show you that, would be observed with him—l mean faith according to the n principles of equity and justice—and that nor d according to a rational estimate, land at this moment common principles be taken of that rise in value pays W., and trade 7d. in the pound, and I ask any mode- vantage would B ut if the l a Parliament sets the example of sate man whether, if we were now about to establish a Britis funds low, the establ i shing in time ,when are doctrine that have would rate of payment between the two classes, he .of with capitalised income, you would think of making the difference greater than exists at nothing todo the funds are high, sets and then in time of this moment?. ,(Cheers-) In December last the right hoa. peace, when Iwillnot merely that 11) the opposite doe gentleinan opposite (Mr. Disraeli) proposed that realised . . notstand as in of this income thould p a y & tax of 7d., and precarious income one nation will tood, but I warn you that you of 54d. • Now, if any one will have the kindness to compare s taking the lead among all theb muet abandon the idea of my figures with the right , hon. gentleman's proposal, it will orrowers of the world, and that yoti must prepare for a change 'be forindthatewithin a fraction of a farthing, the rates pail" those who have hitherto by the two classes' of -income are at present equivalent to persons who say, We We trusted you. (Hear, hear.) There 7d. and sad. (Hear, hear.) .If we break up the present be ~areent rates, according y l , as ought to tax incomes at differ income tax it must be for some object. If that objectrose . skill." In f t y they proceed from property or from to selieve trade at ,the expense of land and houses, one side ac ,they would place industrious incomes on thatune the de, and lazy incomes on the other. Now, in m well that those who may be about to sanction t y should'consider where they are to begin in flaco4 t pri- o l opinion, a great deal may be said in favour of that doc- —........._,,,_ ' . " --- I (I Well • tain to see these inequalities of the income tax, w. ll P° not deny; removed by a reconstruction,. but I .vri s , e , il out the kind your fficulty in which you i find volved when y set about that work, for I can tr a n ; ef a ri fairly say—and I think if I do not command .ere , eas rae as an individual, yet that the characters of my Co ll fiol will demand full credit for them—l can trulY.,!' n e c oal' say that it has been our most earnest desire, 1 1 ,,w tee m your with justice attain that object, to consult the publi bo o in regard to the proposition which we might inaK_e nou it the income tax. (Cheers.) We have therefore studio and laboriously t urne d over th e ques ti on again airT ,, - ,fi it i sc. and have put it, I b e li eve , i n every li g ht i n ' ou o capable of being vi ewe d ; an d now I w ill j u st glue specimen of the way i n w hi c h, w h en you se t a bout l i r s - ,,i1 struction of this tax, you find yourselves involved. _i; rj .i suppose that, if the i ncome t ax b e differentiated, yo u ' extend the favour to w h a t are ca ll e d t erm i na ble anon o in' rd The terminabl e annu it an t s exp i re i n 1860 , an d the a favourable case f or th ose w h o w i s h t o b rea k ul? Ythe Ttel come tax. Of course, th ey w ill ge t th e b ene fit of " . d yoil are worth so m an y y ears ' purchase, and no more , an d *in tell exactly h ow much represents interest and ho.t"9a capital. You p rocee d , then, by exempting the ternlvf n,;;40 annuitants. Is that all? By no means. What do i v e o pi with Government lif e annu it an t s ? M us t y ou not e. w it) them also ? Is not their case substantially the salute), bit the others? A man l ays ou t money on an ann uitYl . ,„ n iti life. Althou g h th e t erm o f lif e i s uncerta i n, suc h a n el t he has just as fi xe d a pr i ce i n L on d on as an annuitY.fjpie, expiry of which you fix the date. On the same pr" . `, to tg therefore, you m us t exemp t th e G overnmen t lif e enr o l, as you do the terminable annuitants ; but, if you d° c , ijr you cannot think o f any thi ng so mons t rous as tarn tie* torests for life, or for a term upon leasehold preP 8 0 :100 How will you be a bl e t o t ax a man w h o h as su ppose e i s. ,, on which h e h as pa id a h eavy fi ne, and of which the b ' ai i, ~t term--of five or -ten years unexpired?_- The great n o rtfo , the interest i n th e property i s not h i s, b ut t h e Lail' e re ther e the reversion er ' s , an d you must ev id ently give hi0 , ..„, 0 id fote, a sha re o f th e exempt i on. Then I must again '' you you of the class holding life interests in the funds f olt can't draw a disti nc ti on b e t ween li fe i nterests i n the of and life intere s t s i n l easeholds. - They must he l p t° of the goodly company of exemptions. After thew t oil , those who hold jo i n t ures an d ot h er annuit i es upoo .. ' v d o Certainly, a lif e annu it y i n the funds is one thing, e t of life annuity upon l an d i s another ; but the life inter!. el the individual is a lik e i n both cases. When you 11:%:e to those in, what do y ou d o w i t h lif e renters, and with vljii. successor of entailed es t a t es, w h o may b e a second e' v 7fef living in the East Indies, whom his predecessor may obi have seen, and in wh om he has no interest ? This tedious to the committ ee , b u t th ese are practical clue s t ioe (Hear, hear.) Ido not say that there are no distineso between each of them. But, what .I say is this, the t , t i l et you come to define those distinctions, and to treat 0 , on the broad ground upon which you take your stanu c o say, "Here you-will be exempt—there you will Ptioc e exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes „ t iat mentioned with respect to which arguments for excel, might not easily be applied. The tendency of al et ioi exemptions, however, is th e b rea ki ng up and, destin e if of the tax. I do not say " relinquishment," be05',70 3 4 linquishment is one thing an d b rea ki ng u p is st'',' 0 Relinquish it for a ti me , and when emergencies arri' e f o may do as your fathers did—take down the pa' weapoe. . the shelf, and m a k e it serve y ou aga i n f or t h e en ds ore it (Cheers.) To relinquish it is altogether safe, becam e altogether honourabl e . B u t t o b rea k it up is to elovV the House of Com mons t o ven t ure upon schemes etY may look well on p a p er , an d may serve t h e purpose jj-e0 Moment, but which will en d i n th e d es t ruct i on o f t 0. by the absurdities and iniquities which they involve..oe if that is to be done it must be by those whose cool er ' 0' enable them to take a different view of the charsc' ,ici of the destiny of this grea t coun t r y. It w ill no t by by men who believe th a t, a lth oug h you may enter no that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you Int° 'io mires, will throw the whole finances of the erolittill confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and eV resort to which hitherto you have been able in allt 1 , 4 01 1 ! look as a course open to you in circumstances of on'',., and trouble. (Cheers.) Sir, the general views of b ..p e ,o jesty's Government with respect to the income tax 3 ') pi it is an engine of gigantic power for . great nationV poses, but at the same time that there are circulio e _Aer attending its operation which make it difficult; r" . „ 0 0 0 impossible, in our opinion - not desirable, to maintew o f le; a portion of the permanent and ordinary finance s ns l . o: country. (Cheers.) The public feeling of its ineql ef is a fact most important in itself. The inquisitiongld, it tails is a most serious disadvantage. And the to which it leads are ev il s w hi c h i t i s not possiblee-to tetid,A tense in -terms too strong. (Hear, hear.) - 011 ,_e m , 0 7 / hope this house will never do and that is nio'' - 100.`', great public questions. Don't let them adopt thedi f t., reconstructing the income tax to-day, and saying, • to ef, does not work well, we'll try our hands at it again, c , row." That is not the way in which the relations %d i ?) are to be treated. Depend upon it when you cora° p ~,. quarters with this subject, when you come to iness a to or see the respective relations of intelligence and lab 810 10° 1° property, and when you come to represent those re 0 0, in arithmetical res u lt s , y ou are un d er t a ki ng an ol' e el, which I should say it was beyond the power of nine o r,, duct with satisfaction, b u t w hi c h , a t any ra t e, is e'fA tion to which you o ug ht no t cons t an tl y t o recur; for if'iill hon. friend once said very p ro p er ly, thi s coun t r y °oat, bear a revolution once a-year, I will venture to set o gee, could not bear a reconstruction of the income ts! told year. (Cheers, and a lau g h.) Wh a t ever you o' til t; / gard to the income tax, you must be bold, you ' l . elt intelligible, you must be de c i s i ve . Y ou must w, v t 0 1 4 0 with it. If you do, I h ave s t r i ven at least to Fo. ? di l l , well as my feeble p owers w ill perm i t, the altno7 / o,l', tion I would s a y, cer t a i n l y th e gross breach of ::: it; your country, of which you will be guilty,. '- te4 jeopardising one of the most valuable among all its;beti resources. I believe it to be of vital importance , j,; o t ri, you keep this tax or whether you part with it, t, , 0, should either keep it or leave it in a state in which 4,3 9', be fit for service on an emergency, and that it will O f ; possible to do if you break up the basis of your ino ° l 4 . o l , (Hear, hear.) Then.you will ask me, "On what P 01,; do you mean to proceed ?—you have made an arguT be,r o i far as you have gone, to show that the tax cane e .,3o l .. constructed or amended." What we wish to do, s '.,,pSe we shall aim at doing by the measure which I shall lis A. , , is this :—We wish, in the first place, t'PutAcg).„ 1 6 uncertainty respecting the income ti " . ' he" think it un f ortunate that political circumstances the last t wo or th ree years lea to a state of doubt in i`e; to the continuance of the tax, and have even begot degrees a feeling on the part of the public that the_n o N is about to be entrapped unawares into its Perr_ .. „.9 ) (Hear, hear.) My belief is, that much of the uneM' 0 4 ing that prevails is traceable to that source, and 11 " - iii ii," far from thinking that the mere asking of the cony to renew this tax for a given term, in opposition t° i t, you to make it perpetual, would be sufficient to alill al anxiety or to remove that doubt. There are a c ert! , . l I , of transactions with regard to which the uncertaill i 'thely the income tax tends most unfavourably—such . 113 ble ,1 minable annuities, for example. It is very desire f tli 7 l certainty should be restored to these transactions.,A it also most desirable that effectual measures so' c p I', But I Iff taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. oso much mean to commit the Government to ° A li °1 opinion to be ac t e d up o n i n future years. t o !1 opinion is decidedly against the peipetuity of the il ly p r permanent ordinary p or ti on ' o f our fi nances. B. w:, O t i • p i state the wish o f the Government ',to propose iert o N o r porary tax, I d o no t as k you t o re l y on their worn° A ll j them or your se l ves as t o w h a t you will do unde r cumstances at the expirntion of th e t erm Whi c h w r e 4 t3 0 to fix for its continuance now. I propose hi - riot' t enactment, by 'the measures which I shall invite op adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament . ,_ t, y position that at a given period it may, if it thins- to tAi withithat tax. (Cheers.) We are most anxi°, f t what can be done, in order to meet the public feel 1, 7 011) the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling i 00, 0 not only respect, but sympathy, while we do tl e ,joc!,! that it is our duty, as persons charged with the o °l o Ty public affairs, to shape our measures according,. 0.101 feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have exab,, 4 practical form which th e y are t o t a k e, and triedl"rori ,„ light of our understanding. (H ear , h ear. ) 1%" reel sir, to introduce certain mitigations into the ope c i ° the income tax. W e p ro p ose t o ex t en d th e. Prw i tj ? tr commutations, which i s now a p p li ca bl e on l y to a t Pr' -professions als o . (H ear , h ear .) A more importeore 'ili gation which we propose to make is this :--"IP 0 0,) general feeling that a man ought to have, at any 1 , 0 iv) opportunity of investing the savings he may in, 5 , 11 4 his income without being liable to the imbrue '',."00 1 :4) them. We do not think it possible to make Pa, 4 1 of that kind applicable to savings simply as o _, ll of' i y we can do is to say, "If you choose to invest yow co, ill ain the form of a d e f erre d annu it y or life. assur; or.; premium which you may. pay upon that deferreu o or life assurance up to one -seventh of your in ce A - 0 0 not be chargeable to your income tax, but may be ; he i ;; from your income t ax b e f ore it is charged." (Hearst 41'' I am not at all p repare d to say that we would stel),:ge, if it were pos s ibl e t o do more. At the same t,'„-,19 plan has con s id era bl e recommendations. I do neLci" S it will meet the cas e o f persons who being aftlietsV sickness cannot, except limier peculiar °iron': ef insure their lives, because, unfortunately, ea ee 'to t'V sort it is beyond the power of the Legislatur e ,g 2 , 91 But what Ido say is this—that it is a relief w w i ," o o l ' 4 ,, admit of very extensive application. I cannot rec . ;;ore, the reduction from the receipts of the tax in e° l3 , i s it.s% of it will be less—though, of course, it is an un c- „ it when we look to the total amount of life assuran e 4co,',4! country—than 120,000 i. a year. It establishes, ,e it ' no invidious distinctions between one class and gi, It is open to all th ose w h o c h oose t o avail theinso" e t; / but while it is open to them all, we know that Plifei o' the classes who are i n th e h a bit of assuringW iz : e t °, 4 just those very cl as ie s w h om it i s your main ob) e ; o ld Hove by the reconstruction o f th e tax—namely, the of , professional men and of pe rsons w h o ar e' 209 upon their own exertions. I think it w ill b e ne e ",ool propose that Government should itself become i .,0,: 0 i of life. If it is to undertake that c h arge, as will I' " be the case, it will assure on the same principle s ,t 0 4 on which it is now a vendor of lif e annu iti es . P o to, , ' I say that our object is to meet th e pu bli c f ee ling 0 04)! inequality of the tax, and whil e I specify these to, goin 4 some way to effect that object, I have in °2 1 0 0 , 1 , 1 1 before you upon this subject. And pray enders At Do not let me through my neglect be misundT fail to state clearly the position of the Governme ll ,W, we understand to be the sez.timents of the o °''' -- F ii" di ey what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are --, 9 11 „r -share in, is, that the income tax bears upon the ;:41 1 .1, hard upon intelligence and skill, and not - hard. _„eo° P c e‘i f t? property as compared: with intelligence and sX i f;, o l l ,, o i hear.) I hope that I state with accuracy, not r ob 91, 1 , ! measures that_ we propose, but the object Nvh l IfrA constructors of the income tax have in view' s entst i that be their object—if they think that at Pr e t re and intelligence are too severely pressed, and th_„ n e • d ~, i ) under the income tax pays too little, let me row - 0 0'4 that they must not form their judgment of th e 4agl e o4 of classes from one single tax, or from another 1.,. b , A but that they must look to the general effect of Z o pilr ' system of taxation. (Hear, hear.) And all 1 j ",,, c'eVi them in that respect at this moment is, that th e y V fr o', serve their decision upon the question whether tli :yr-' ll it f : ment proposition suffi c i en tl y - meets, the case , ° ; f i the intelligence, as c om p are d w ith property, un" io it ,‘ hoard me through ou t, if th e i r kindness will P er jo it':l, to do so. (Hear, hear.) Our proposition, thoT ei r e o4l to the income t ax i s •this :—We propose to two years from April, 1853, at the rate of 7d. in 04 ii., The committee will recollect that I said r u lt9, o lo our duty to look the whole breadth of this dtw" cler b igo face—not to endeavour to escape it, not tolcrie l ' • attenuate, but to settle, if the committee w ow hear'iii.„ol the whole question of the incomntax. (Hoer' iron', r 1 propose, then, t o re-enact,' it ft/ two Y e ars, ~a., e t l4 1853, to April, 1855 , a t t h e rate of 7d. in the P ° 5(1. 1 t ,, April, 1855, to enact it for two more years s , j orYli pound—(slight murmurs)—and th en , f o r thq o a 1 1 cl'ij, --(laughter and murmurs from the Oprosl 0 )- -- got which prevented the conclusion of the sente ll f r on_i,j wonder at the laughter—for three more yearr: r er . cif, 1857, at sd. (Hear, hear.) Under this. h' 0, '- income tax will expire on the sth of April,l+°"" 3 trim , — "Er but' observe the effect it must have with regard to the public revenue. The landholder must exert himself with respect to his land, the hot, seholder as to his house, and the mortgagee must either look out himself, or pay his lawyer for looking out after his money, —and I do not be lieve there is any income which is perfectly and entirely a lazy income, except the income of the fundholder. (Hoar, and a laugh.) If that were so, the fundholder would enjoy an entire pre-eminence in taxation, and the degree of that pre-eminent it would rest with you to fix. I honour the sense of justice of the hon. member fdr Montrose, and so I honour the sense of justice of those gentlemen—the ac tuaries—who have recommended the fundamental kecon 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 say 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 practical in its character, and which I beg to commend to their particular 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—(Hear, 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 manner in which the funds are held. About 1.5 years ago the funds were chiefly held 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 Nat 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 sums are all by law exempt from income tax. Then, in the second place, we have the Chancery and Bankruptcy accounts, amounting to between 50,000,000/. and 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 com 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 holders who have a mere life interest. The fifth class interested in joint accounts consists of trading cotnpanies 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 ing money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes of 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 0, 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 in 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 300,000/., or rather more than one-twentieth I 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 pl aces 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 Trofessional 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 r us h es t o 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 ex amination 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 150/. 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 same difficulty there ; but there are other and more serious difficulties than those. Many persons holding salaried offices --not public servants—now charged in schedule D, have certainly a much worse tenure, and an inferior interest in their in comes 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 int eres t i n their trades much inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and trades, and businesses change hands much quicker. They are creatures of to-d a y, gone to-morrow • and professional men, as a class, putti ng as id e the exceptional case of sick ness, are permanence it se lf compared with a certain de scription of the smaller class of traders. (Hear.) I must warn the committee likewise that they will find the greatest difficulty when they cow to consider, in the midst of their breaking up of th e i ncome tax, the ea' se of the life annui tants. Let me for a moment put it to you who these people are. Professional persons, at all events, are men charged by the Almighty with the care of wives and chil dren, and, generally, with a capacity to discharge that duty. But when you come to life annuitants, you then deal with the desolate widow, with the orphaned daughter, with the defenceless woman, whose right it is to expect at your hands justice, tenderness, and protection. Are their incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady who has been brain 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 inattention of offi cial persons to their duties, that prevents them givin g effect to the wishes which many gentlemen laudably enter. :sat . „