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

speech of Lord Dufferin, said that he would readily vote against the continuation of the grant, but would now content himself with supporting the ministerial amend ment. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended the Roman Catholic priesthood from the imputation cast upon them by the Bishop of London, and denied the necessity of any inquiry whatever. The Duke of LEINSTER bore testimony to the good conduct of the priests at Maynooth. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY thought the inquiry neces sary, because he believed the number of priests was in creasing in an inverse ratio to the increase of population, and that if so, the condition of the grant was violated. He would support the Earl of Aberdeen's amendment, if the commission consisted of five instead of three ; and moved some verbal amendments to the amendment of the ministry. The Duke of ARGYLL supported the amendment, a course which he declared to be consistent with all his ormer votes and speeches. While he objected to a ommittee, ht-thought that, with the present feeling in be country, some inquiry was expedient. He con cluded by questioning the consistency of the noble leader of the opposition, upon which The Earl of DERBY illustrated his total disregard for the criticisms of the noble duke by a parallel drawn from low life—of a gigantic navvie, who, having been beaten by his wife, a little woman, asserted that it amused her, and did not hurt him. He could see very little difference between the motion and amendment, but would support the former. Lord LANSDOWNE objected to the appointment of a committee on a subject of this kind. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY and an 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 WINCHILSEA having replied, The house divided, when the motion was lost by 110 to 53. The house then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair a few minutes before four o'clock, at which time there was a very large attendance of members. NEW MEMBER. Mr. GREENE took the oaths and his seat for Lan caster. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed : Bognor Railway; Runcorn and Weston Canal Bill ; Teignmouth 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, a n d B e lf as t J u nction Railway ; Portsmouth Railway; Ambergate, Nottingham, and Bos ton and Eastern Junction Railway (No. 1) ; Am bergate, Nottingham I)l'and Boston and Eastern Junc tion Railway (S a l e , &c.) (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) ; 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 and London and North-Western Railway ; Limerick and Foynes Railway ; London and Finsbury Improve ments and Railways, &c. ; South Eastern Railway (Can terbury and Whitstable, &c.) ; 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 of the public. Mr. ADAIR 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 fullest inquiry should take place. Mr. WADDINGTON defended the conduct of the Eastern Counties Company. After a few observations from Mr. COBBOLD and Mr. G. BALL, The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was 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. accumulated on the present Government the task they have to discharge in that regard ; and in connexion with those questions there have of late been raised discussions of a nature most deeply interesting, descending to the first ele mentary principles of taxation, and almost to the first principles on which men are united in civilised society. (Hear, hear.) With a task so formidable before me, I feel warranted in addressing a special appeal to the committee for their kindness and indulgence, for I am certain that only by their kindness and indulgence, can I be enabled— I will not say to discharge the task as it ought to be dis charged, for that is wholly beyond my power—but to dis 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 bf the country. I think I shall best discharge it by taking up the state of that account from the point at which it stood last year, when the financial department was in the hands of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), and it will be satisfactory to the committee to observe, that as our experience grows with the lapse of time, so do we obtain larger and still larger proof of the elasticity of the revenue and of the progress of the productive and consuming powers of the country. (Cheers.) On the 30th of April, 1852, the :right hon. gentleman opposite estimated the revenue for the year at 51,625,0001., and in the month of December, 1852, when the right honourable gentleman had occasion to return to the subject, he was able to pre sent to us an estimate which placed the revenue of the year at 52,325,0001., exhibiting an increase upon his estimate in April amounting to not less than 700,0001. And now, within the few months which have elapsed since last De cember, we have further evidence of the same gratifying character, for the revenue which the right hon. gentleman then judiciously estimated at 62,325,0001. amounted to no less, when we reached the termination of the year, than 5 3,019,0001., showing an increase of 1,464,0001. upon the estimate formed at the commencement of the year. (Hear, hear.) The expenditure of the last year, as estimated by the right hon. gentleman opposite on the 30th of April, 1852, was taken at 51,163,0001., but the actual expenditure has only reached to 50,782,0001., and consequently you have had figures presented to you in the balance-sheet which must have been gratifying to every member of the committee in showing a surplus of income over the expen diture to the amount of 2,460,0001. (Hear, hear.) But, having reached this point by a smooth - and easy progress, it is now my duty to entreat hon. gentlemen to make large deductions from the very sanguine estimate—so sanguine as, considering the quarter from which it came, to excite my surprise—that because our balance yields 2,460,0001. of surplus, therefore we have that sum available for re mission of taxation. That would be a too precipitate in ference. Unfortunately, before we arrive at that conclu sion, there is one circumstance rather material to 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 estimates of the last year, I find it stands as follows :—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 diminution, amount s t o 52,183,0001. Therefore, without going into other par ticulars, which, I am sorry to say, occasion a fur ther deduction from the surplus of 2,460,0001., I beg to point out that no less than 1,400,0001., or nearly three-fifths of that surplus, are already disposed of by the charges to which you are liable under acts of 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 diminish. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman opposite, in December, 1852, esti mated as follows his surplus for the present year :—He took a total sum of 1,600,0001., of which I think he stated that, on the ordinary revenue, ho would venture to antici pate a surplus amounting to between 1,300,0001. and 1,400,0001., and by decrease of charge for the Kafir war a sum of 200,0001. or 300,0001. These two sums put together gave a surplus, as the basis of his calculations for the year, amounting to 1,600,000/. 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 of 100,0001,, which he proposed to apply to light dues and purposes connected with shipping, and 600,0001. 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 fir the year within these limits. I shall now state to the house how that surplus of 1,609,000/. has been swallowed. The increase on the navy estimates, including the packet service, as voted in 1852, and as we found it prepared for this year (making the com parison with the estimate of April, 1852, not including the supplemental vote of December), amounts to 617,6031. The increase on the army and commissariat, but almost en tirely on the commissariat, is 90,0001. ; and that increase on the commissariat is to be accounted for by the fact that we have now reached, we trust, that stage in the hostilities at the Cape when we may consider our extraordinary votes at an end, and when the provision to be made has passed under ordinary expenditure ; therefore, though it is our duty to submit to the house, during the present ses sion an extraordinary vote for 200,0001., which is essen tially retrospective, we have likewise to submit a vote for 70,0001. in commissariat expenditure, which in its charac ter is prospective, and analagous to our ordinary estimates. So the durable expenditure, as far as the Cape is con cerned, is charged on the service of the present year. The increase on the ordnance is 616,0001. The militia estimates have not yet been brought to the shape in which they will be laid on the table : but I am sorry to say that there will be a large and I believe unavoidable increase on the amount taken last year by my right hon. friend then Secre tary for the Home Department. The estimate for the present year cannot, I fear, be expected to be much less, if at all less than 530,0001. 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 sum of 100,0001. 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 1,600,0001 for the finan cial year of 1853-4, the augmentations of charge, princi pally voted already and in part yet to come, amount to no less than 1,654,0001. As I have already stated to the com mittee there has been some further improvement in the revenue, and there are likewise some few items of public expenditure on which the Government have been able to effect some small saving. With respect to the important and unsatisfactory charge for the packet contract service, it has been our most anxious desire to see what, consis tently with justice, was to be done to amend the position of the public. We think that the amount of change which that service has reached, is wholly disproportionate with the benefit derived. (Cries of " Hear.") lam not at pre sent in a condition to lay the estimate on the table, or to state exactly what the estimate will be, but I venture to anticipate at any rate for the first year, we may be able to effect a saving on it of not less than 75,000/. There will also be a saving on the charge for Exchequer-bids, owing to the diminution of interest, amounting to about 65,0001., and there will be a sum which the house must observe is occasional in its nature, of 135,0001., arising out of repay ments to the Crown revenues, and available under the pro visions of the law as ways and meant„ in consequence of the bill passed by the house having reference to metropoli tan improvements ; and also there will be produced a sum, by the liberation of the Crown revenues from a charge which heretofore affected there on the same account, to the extent of about 27,0001. These various items will give a fund amounting to about 301,0001. I will now state more particularly to the committee the items of anticipated revenue and expenditure of the coun try, from which they will see precisely the amount of the surplus we have to deal with. I should at the outset ex plain that I think it would be convenient that I should in all cases, disregarding minute inaccuracies, give the sums in round numbers. I will now present to the committee an account of the estimated revenue and expenditure for the year 1853-54. With regard to the expenditure, the charge for the funded debt is put down at 27,500,0001., and the charge for the unfunded debt at 304,0001., making a total for the debt of 27,801,000/. The charges on the consolidated fund will be 2,503,000/. ; the army estimates, 6,025,0001. ; the navy, 6,235,0001., not including the packet service ; the Ordnance estimates, 3,053,000/. • miscellane ous, 4,476,000/. ; commissariat, 557,000/. ; the militia, as nearly as I can judge, 530,000/. ; the extraordinary vote for the Kafir war, 200,000/. ; and the packet service, I think, may be fairly taken at 800,000/. for the present year. These items give a total of estimated expenditure amounting to 52,183,0001. I now come to the estimate of anticipated revenue. I take the revenue of the Customs at 20,680,000/. • Excise, 14,640,0001. ; s t am p s , 6,700 , 000/ . ; taxes, 3,250,005/. ; and income tax, 5,550,000/. From the Post-office we expect 900,000/. • and from the Crown lands, swelled by the addition I 'have already referred to, 390,0001. ; from miscellaneous sources of re ce ipt (i nc l u di ng , I think, aout 160,0001., being the capital of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, out of which we shall have to pay 80,0001. during the present year on account of pensions, and the whole of the remainder, I need not say, will be absorbed long before that charge for pension ceases) we expect about 320,0001., and from old stores 460,0001. To these I ven ture to add, though the items is necessarily one of uncer tainty and conjecture, that I anticipate a saving of no less than 100,0001. from the operations which have been pro posed to the house in connexion with the exchange and re demption of stock. It may, certainly, be less, and it may, .on the other hand, be more—the final result, I hope, will show a considerable saving. I venture now to take credit for 100,000/. on that account. Adding up, then, these va rious items, the committee will find that they give a total estimated income for the year of 52,990,0001., against which we have to set the total estimated expenditure of 52,183,0001., showing an apparent surplus of 807,0001. Anxious, above all, to avoid raising undue expectations, I am desirous to impress on the committee that it must bear in mind that out of this sum of 800,0001. eas amount of 215,000/. consists of moneys which do not proCeed from permanent or recurring sources, but of moneys due simply to the year, and no t to he repeated. Like wise, with the uncertainty connected with the items for the packet-service and for the Channel Islands' har bours, on which my right hon. friend at the head of the A4lmiralty and I are not quite sure whether we can or ca: mot 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 100,0001. Therefore, it will be more secure for the c ommittee to assume that the surplus,. instead of 800,0001., will be 700,0001., and to bear in mind that 215,0001. out of it con sists of occasional payments. At the same time, while giving this explanation by way of caution, my sanguine hope is that we shall realise a surplus of 800,0001. 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 ono-tenth of the whole revenue, which, from 1842 up to the present time, we have been deriving from the income-tax. However, the income-tax has at this moment legally expired, and it will be for the com mittee to consider whether or not they shall revive it. yrpullthat subject I am afraid that it will be my duty to on o a deetTire a committee at some length ; but before I venture withp(l continuous otuos prospective exposition oof finance,the vie Nys o theref theare Government tava questions to which I must briefly advert on a c coun t chiefly of the p os iti on they occupied in the financial state ment of my predecessor ina t p l a ie rt o ic ffic al e ar l c. inow fill. The first Now, as re sh p e pf in g n rntrrest, the house ass. g o f a r i d h s e s t e h e ha s right hon. friend knows eet e the ci o e n President. state ment already made by my of the Board of Trade, that her Ma' propose to afford what they trust will be Majesty's found Government sider- able benefit and relief to that interest, without inflicting an annual charge upon the public. (Hear.) But there was another interest mentioned by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) which has so much claim upon the general sympathies of the house, that respect and consider ation demand that I should not leave it without men tion ; I mean that which is called the West Indian interest. (Hear.) With regard to that interest, I regret to say that there is indeed littl e , if any thi ng, t h at 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 to a reduc tion of the duty on sugar. which is one of its requests, in proportion to the fall in the duty upon foreign sugar, so as to maintain the differential rate that now exists between them, it is entirely impossible for the Government to hold out the smallest hope of their recommendation being adopted. (Hear.) With respect to the question of re fining sugar in bond, which is of a different character, my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) will take a future occasion of entering more at large into that question ; but I 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 satisfactory to the West Indians and to the refining trade, and which at the same time would not inflict very heavy loss upon the revenue. (Hear.) With respect to the equali sation of spirit duties, again I fear that really nothing re mains to be done in that respect. I believe the distillers of this country consider that already the duties have been somewhat more than equalised, all things considered, in the case of the West Indies. At all events, we are not prepared to propose any change in the law in the nature of equalisa tion of spirit duties as between colonial and domestic pro duce. (Hear.) There is but one way in which it has oc curred to the Government that they might entertain a sanguine hope of being able, at very slight charge to this country, perhaps at no charge, to confer material benefit on the West Indies ; and that is a way which, if it can be effected, will, I am sure, command the approbation of this house, because it is by enabling them to economise the heavy expenditure of their own governments—(hear)—a heavy and now in many cases almost a ruinous expenditure. In the case of Jamaica, for example, there is a public debt, the minimum rate of interest upon which is 6 per cent., and the maximum 10 per cent., the capital of the debt amounting to about 500,0001. ; and if it were possible for the Government to induce tie Assembly of Jamaica to amend the vicious constitution of that island, and to place it upon a foundation that would give scope for a strict con trol over expenditure, her Majesty's Government would then be disposed to recommend to this house to employ the credit of this country in a guarantee for the island of Ja maica. (Hear.) Ido not now inquire whether that would entail a charge upon you ; I believe it would entail none. I would be the first to assert that there should be the ut most jealousy as to the interposition of the credit of this country between debtors and creditors out of this country —(hear)—but, considering all that has happened to 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 West India colonies. lam not sure that there is any other among those colonies which would be in a condition to request a similar interposition—(hear) —if they did, it would depend upon the case they showed. I do not think it likely that such a case will arise; all I mean to say at the present moment is, that the door would not be absolutely shut against them. I 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 December last, it was evidently the duty of her Majesty's Government to make a full investiga tion into the transactions of that board. We haveinstituted that investigation —we have presented the results in print to the house--they are in a form so simple that an inspection occupying ohly a few minutes will exhibit them to anyhon. member. It appears from the figures there presented that, after debiting the Exchequer Loan Fund—l won't say with every folly of Parliament, but with every questionable or ambiguous grant that was made—after chargingthewhole of this to the last farthing, yet such has been the sound discre tion exercised by the members and officers of that board in the loans they have made, that while they have afford e d a n immense amount of local accommodation, they have like wise realised, after paying every expen_e that belongs to the office, a net balance of not less than 227,300/.—(hear) —which balance, if we put values such as sanguine men might perhaps put upon certain investments that have not yet been realised, it is far from impossible may be raised to nearly 1,000,0001. 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—(hear)—and it is not our intention to propose the abolition of that system, which we think has been both honourable to those who have 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 discussion of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) The first question that this committee has to con sider is, whether or not it will make efforts to part with the income tax at once. I do not say that such an alter native is impossible. On the contrary, I believe that by the conjunction of three measures, one of which must be a tax upon land, houses, and other visible property, of per haps 6d. in the pound, and another a system of licenses upon trade made univer 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 Government. Now, in regard to the income tax, I wish that I could possess the committee with the impression that constant study has made upon my own mind of the deep and vital importance of the subject. We are too apt to measure the importance of the subject by the simple fact that we draw from this tax 5,500,000/. of revenue. Sir, that sum is a large one, but the mention of it conveys no idea to the committee of the immense mo ment and magnitude of the question. If you want to ap preciate the income tax 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)—you must consider what, if you do not destroy it—and I will explain afterwards what I mean by " destroy,"—what it may do for you again, if it please God that those times shall return. (Hear, hear.) Sir, in was in the crisis of the revolutionary war that, when Mr. Pitt found the resources of taxation were failing under him, his mind fell backupon the conception of the income tax ; and when he proposed it to Parliament that great man, possessed with his great idea, raised his eloquence to an unusual height and power. There is a description of the speech of Mr. Pitt on that oc casion, written by a foreigner, a well-known writer of the day—Mallet du Pan—which I may venture to read to the committee ; I believe; after the lapse of 55 years, it will be read not without interest. (Hear.) This is an account which, in a periodical that he edited, he gives of Mr. Pitt's speech in 1798 : " From the time that deliberative assemblies 'have existed, I doubt whether any man ever heard a display of this nature equally astonishing for , its extent, its precision, and the talents of its author. It is not a speech spoken by the Mi nister ; it is a complete course of public economy ; a work, and one of the finest works, upon practical and theoretical finance that ever distinguished the pen of a philosopher and. statesman. We may add this statement to the learned re searches of such men as Adam Smith, Arthur Young, and Stuart, whom the Minister honoured with his quotations." (Hear, hear.) Ido not know whether this committee are aware how much the country owes to the former income tax, but, because I deem it to be of vital importance that you should fully appreciate the power of this colossal en gine of finance, I will 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 comparison be tween the mode in which your burdens were met during that period of the war when you had no income tax—dur ing that period of the war when you had the income tax in a state of half-efficiency—and during that last and most arduous period of the war, when the income tax was in its full power. From 1793 to 1798, a period of six years, there was no income tax ; from 1790 to 1802 there was an income tax, but the provisions of the law made it far less effective in proportion to rate than it now is ; and from 1806 . to 1815, a period of 11 years, you had the income tax in its full force. Now, every one of us is aware of the enormous weight and enormous mischief that have been entailed upon this country by the accumulation of our debt—(hear, hear)—but it is not too much to say that it id demonstrated by the figures that it need not at this moment have ex isted if there had been the resolutions to submit to the income tax at an earlier period. (Hear.) This test I think you wit admit is a fair one ; I put together the whole charge of government and war, together with th e c h arge of so much of the nation a l debt had accrued before 1793, so as to make (if I may so express myself) a 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 the six years down to 1798 to 36,030,000/. a-year : the revenue of that period, with all the additional taxes that were laid on, amounted to 20,626,0001.. a-year ; there was, therefore, an annual excess of charge above revenue—charge for government, war, and debt contracted before 1793, including the charge of debt contracted since 1793—0 f no less than 15,404,0001. (Hear.) In 1798 you just appreciate the income tax, and immedi ately a charge begins. In the four years from 1799 to 1802 the charge for the same items that I have mentioned,which had been 36,000,0001., rose to 47,413,0001. a-year ' • but the revenue rose to 33,724,0001. a-year, an d th e excess for those four years was diminished by about 2,000,0001. a-year ; instead of an annual excess of 15,400,0001. over revenue, it was 13,689,0001. 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 governmentth the a contractedfro m 1806 t a o v e l r B a l g s a , annual together expenses x w p t n h s e t s h o e f c w ha a r r g alld e upo 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 15,404,0001. a-year, or (as it was in the second period) 13,689,0001. a-year, was only 2,004,0001. a-year from 1806 to 1815. (Hear, hear.) Such was the power of the income tax. I have said there was a deficiency annually of 2,004,0001., but it is fair for you to recollect, and it is necessary in order to present to you the fact I want to place in clear view, that out of the 65,794,0001. of char g e that I have mentioned, abo u t 9,500,0001. were due for charge of debt contracted before 1793, so that if you compare the actual expense of govern ment with the whole expense of war from. 1806 to 1815 with your revenue when you had the income tax, it stands thus before you—that you actually raised 7,000,000/. a-year during that period more than the charge of government and the charge of war. (Hear.) That, I must say, is to me a most remarkable fact. (Hear.) It affords to me the proof, that if you do not destroy the efficacy of this engine—l do not raise now the question whether it is to be temporary or permanent, which I hold to be quite a different question, and I will go into that by and by—it affords you the means should unhappily hostilities again break out, of at once raising your army to 300,000,and your 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 your arsenals well stored, I say this fiscal reserve is no less important (hear, hear) ; for, if it be used aright, it is an engine to which you may re sort, and with which, judiciously employed, if unhappily necessity arise—which may God in His mercy avert (hear, hear)—with it judiciously employed you may again, if need be, defy the world. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") This, then, is the purpose which the income tax has served— that in the time of vital struggle, it enabled you to raise the income of the country above its expenditure of war and civil government (hear), and that service so performed was performed at a time when men do not minutely in quire into the incidence of taxation ; they do not then indulge themselves in the adjustment of details ; but are afraid lest they shouki l ose th e mass and the substance. (Hear, hear.) But times when the hand of violence is let loose, and when whole plains are besmeared with carnage, are the times when it is desirable that you should have the power of resort to this mighty engine, to make it again available for the defence and salvation of the country. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, the income tax dropped along with the purpose of the income tax in 1816. Bnt it was elestined to be revived. Sir R. Peel, in 1842, called forth from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war, to come and assist our industrious toils in peace (hear, hear) ; and if the first income tax produced enduring and memorable results, so I am free to say, at less expenditure by far in money, and without those painful accompani ments of havoc, war, and bloodshed (hear, hear)--so has the second income tax. The second income tax has been the instrument you have introduced, and which, I hope, ere long you may perfect, the reform—the effective reform of your commercial and fiscal system (hear, hear) • and I, for one, am bold enou g h t o h ope and to expect 'that, in reforming your own fi sca l an d commercial system, you have laid the foundations of similar reforms—slow per haps, but certain in their progress —through every country of the civilised world. (Cheers.) I say therefore, sir, that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with it we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and may console ourselves for the annoyances it may have en tailed, by the recollection that it has been the means of achieving great good, immediately to England, and ulti mately to mankind. (Cheers.) Let me now attempt to present to the committee a closer analysis of this duty. I shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the Government, that we cannot at the present moment, with a due regard to the public interests, dispense with the in come tax. Let us look a little into its composition. Let us attempt to investigate the charges that are brought against it. lam not one of those who make light of those charges. (Hear.) In my own individual opinion, it is perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax was put an end to at the terminatien of the war, that it is not well adapted for a permanent portion of your finan cial system. (Hear.) Whether it is so or not, on which there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on all hands agreed—that it is not adapted for a permanent portion of your fiscal system, unless you can, by recon struction, remove its inequalities. (Hear.) Even if you could remove its inequalities, into which we will patiently examine, there would still remain in my mind objections of the gravest character. (Hear, hear.) The reconstruc tion of your income tax would, I think, under any circum stances, be found to open up social questions of the most serious import ; and the machinery of the income tax, in volving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the objectionable principle of self assessment, in my opinion, can never be satisfactory to the country. (Hear, bear.) First, because self assessment leads to grievous frauds upon the revenue, and renders the real inequality of the tax more trying than any of those inequalities which im mediately strike the eye and feelings ; and, secondly, be cause of the tendency to immorality, which is, I fear, essen tially inherent in the nature of the operation. But now let us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let me observe that we ale too much in the habit of speaking of this impost as merely a simple tax ; it is rather a code or system of taxation. In mere bulk it is a volume ; it has been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive years ; it combines a large mass of precedents: and in short it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,0001. a year. One - twenty-eighth part of this sum is 200,0001. Now, if you investigate the composition of schedule A, you will find that land and houses—which I take together, because their position is substantially analogous—including the in comes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and set tlements, pay no less than 12.28ths of the tax, or about 2,400,003/. Now, let us look at the other great element of this tax, namely, the payment that proceeds from trades. In order to get at this payment accurately, we must de scend a little deeper than the mere classification of the schedules. There are in schedule A some considerable classes of property which pay duty along with land and houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 27,0001. a year, which are essentially trading concerns. For the pur pose which I have in view I must likewise take out of sche dule B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous in character. This gives me 330,0001. more, and then I come to what I may call trades proper —namely, those which appear in schedule D, and which pay a sum of something like 1,200,0001. These three branches of trades in schedules A, B, and D, contribute an income of no less than 1,800,0001., or 9.2Bths of the whole tax ; and the two together—that is to say, land and houses and trades, pay 4,200,0001., or 21-28ths of the whole tax. There romain the funds in schedule 0, which pay 750,0001., or I.7th of the whole tax, and salaries in schedule E, which pay about 1-17th of the tax. Professions in schedule D, after striking out those which partake rather of the character of trades, pay 250,0001., or about 1-22 d of the tax. Thus, we see, the funds, salaries, and professions make up tl e remaining 4th of the tax—three-fourths being paid by lands and houses and by trades. It is said that gross inequality is the characteristic of the tax, and that it ou g ht no t t o b e levied al — ik that it va is unjust m n i j n u eo stt e i ot s ax precarious and rea li se d in precarious, and what income is realised ? Income derived from trade would, I presume, th assume s su mainm e be called precarious ; and, without wishing to anticipate thatqt h u e e s, judgm ent ettcti hitohneoslmissbate wiqrsouenfoeedp: t hetiminl ques tion . magnitude, nd c o . m tai ni m a ndde i d Observe t tfa e tr committee, that, may after probably all, .s houses, buto E ct sveaes7mwehreien find, else, nd p outline aioynf r th es i p s an income tax of 2,400,0001., and trade pays 1,800,000/. ; between them they pay three-fourths of the whole tax. It is, therefore, evident that the justice of the present rela tions between land and trade must go a considerable—l do not say the whole —way towards the solution of the great question, whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not. Let us, then, look at the tax as it stands between land and houses and trade, and if the committee will do me the fa vour to follow me in the estimate I am about to enter upon, it shall be my endeavour to place the matter before them in as clear a light as possible. My first object is to show the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say that realised and precarious incomes ought to pay different rates, and that therefore the tax ought to bereconstructed, they forget to inquire whether at the present moment rea lised and precarious incomes, as represented by l an d an d houses on the one hand, andby trades on the other, do not pay different rates. Let us, in the first place, see at what rate land and homes pay. Land pays in the gross 7d. in the pound upon an income not assessed by the possessors of the property,' but by strangers independent of them, and this sum is paid without any, the smallest, deduction in respect of the difference between gross and net income. (Hear, hear.) It is obvious that, in order to estimate how much land and houses really pay, we must deduct the whole of the difference between the gross and the net income. Nay, we must do more than this, because the owners of land and houses are not the only persons beneficially interested in this description of property ; for instance, a large body of mortgagers encumbrancers, and life-rent ers, w h o, a l t h ough they pay 7d.' in the pound on their share of the proceeds of land and houses, do not make up the difference between gross and net receipts. In the estimate I am about to submit to the committee I have been guided by inquiries which every member is as capable of making as I am. I can only say that the estimate has been framed in a spirit of modera tion, and tested, as well as the case admitted, by reference to persons most familiar with the subject. About 80,000,000.., the gross income o f l an d an d h ouses, pay the tax. At 7d. in the pound, this gives, in round n um b ers , 2,333,0001. What are the deductions which ought to be allowed for the difference between gross and net income,— I will not say according to an arbitrary standard of equity —but if we should break up the present scheme and con struct a new one, what should we be called on, and of course I must say, what should we in justice be compelled, to allow on this score? In Scotland the difference allowed between gross and net income from land is known by the designation of "public burdens." We have no analogous phrase in England ; but we have the burdens. The first r repairs, and un d er thi s and draining. Rep a i rs head I include rgsllaeatrwrh.ghe large charges,dl chargea r g n ge g, c d h iw i i a t pi e r g ot h hn i e o n b land, uc,fto, (Hear.) You m us t a ll ow f or i nsurance, business connected w ith landed property and but as regards hou ses which it is impossibl e t o Hear," from th e O pposition.) You must he conduct nnueidsdass constitute i t eu s i s t e ti s i . t t eu o l ill f me l (o a , allow—l will not say all the cost of management, but as much of it as you allow to a merchant under schedule D —you must allow for clerks, sub -agents, ground-bailiffs, offices, stationery, receipts, and so forth. You must allow for arrears of rent, and you must likewise allow for what is called abatement of rent which is a real deduction from income. (" Hear," from the Opposition.) How much shall we allow under these heads ? What is the gross de duction wo must make from the income of 80,000,000/. supposed to . be received by the owners of land and houses ? I take it at 16 per cent. I do not think this is an unfair estimate ; I am certain that it is, in some instances, a very low one. (" Hear, hew . ," from the Opp os iti on. ) If 16 per cent, be a fair deduction, it is evident we should reduce the 80,000,0001. subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by the sum of 12,800,0001., which is actually expended before the income reaches the pocket of the owner; and, there fore, we have arrived at this point, th a t we have got, in stead of 80,000,0001. of income, only 6 7,200,000/., and this reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,0001. (Cheers.) Then I come to another question upon which I must again resort to conjectural estimate. What is a fair estimate to make of the total amount of charges on land and houses all over the kingdom, in respect not only of mortgages, but of settlements and all other arrangements of that kind ? I estimate that one-fourth part of !the gross income derived from land and houses goes into the pockets not of persons beneficially interested in them, properly speaking, but into those of mortgagees and others who re must deduct the fou r th par t of t c h e iev owners u n d e r o s f e I t a l n e d m a e n n t d s . h o l n f s t e h s a d t o b n e o s t o , r e t e h e e i n v e i appears 11 1. a t ; but from that sum you 80,000,0001., which reduces their income to 47,200,0001. then, the net receipt of those the income tax. Well, who receive the 20,000,000 L, pay t b il h e e n i e s o fi s p c u p i m a o l s l i o y t f i o n n 7 t:l 2 r W es ß re u cri y n o i l i s a i n wi d and d sa h y ous th es e . e ( n " en H' m ea b r r , a " n f e r e o r m s, let us see what their quota amounts to. Sevenpence in the o f 1 000/. will be left, and thi s i s houses, and th e sum 750 , f p r o o u m nd t o h n e 220,3,0:00,00001. paid by the owners of land an d 1. gives 583,0001. Deduct this sum the amount actually paid on an income of 47,200,0001. If honourable members will figures I have stated, they w that the incom e d er ived from land and houses is taxed tiallke find d e th tr e ou r b esloulttotaopbpelythis, the from the Opposition benches.) Then, • there be a prondf ac ie case for know is this—supposing inequality between theground of inequality at the rate, not of 7d., but 9d.inthewphoardi want t ee t rs o breaking up the income tax on you on the do greater than that the two classes, the difference ought to be t between the tw o c l as ses of pnyers , namely, the owners o f land and hous es an d th o se engaged in trades, which now exists ? (Hear.) I do not raise‘vhatever between the there ought to be any difference but I _ whole, think that if a difference ought to whe therbheemquacelsetiboentween ate, land at this moment pays 9d., and trad e 7d. in the pound, an according to a ra tional estim , and I ask any mode rate man whethe r , if we were now about to establish a two classes ; I p ass the question by ; show you that, greater than exists at different rate of would think of making the difference last the right hoi. this moment ? (Cheers.) In December that realised gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli ) proposed . payment between the two classes, he kindness to compare of 54d. Now, if any one will have th it will my figures with the right hon. gentleman ' s proposal , rates paid be found that, within a fraction of a farthing, the . income should pay a tax of 7d., and p e recarious income one by the two classes of Inc • ome are at present equivalent be object. If that object income tax it must be for some houses, it is to relieve trade at the expense of land and about to sanction that purpose 7d. and 54d. (Hear, hear.) If we break up the present well that those who may be the pro ivalent to should consider where they are to begin in filing portions of the payments to be made by different classes, I and where they are to end. (Hear, hear.) If it be de sired to settle the question according to the views which have pressed themselves on the minds of many moderate and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and by my hon. friend the member for Wiltshire in committee—namely, by making land pay about 4d. and precarious income about 3d., then I say that object is accomplished, for the payments of the two classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment. But let us go further in the consideration of this vastly im portant question. I protest against the doctrine of those who propose to do justice between the two kinds of income by establishing average classes in each kind. That is the course advocated by the hon. member for Montrose. The hon. member is always consistent, and always manful ; and when lie sees a difficulty he takes no pains to avoid it. (Laughter.) His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income tax, into difficulties which a man acting as a tactician would avoid. The common notion was that incomes should be classed in averages. In the name of reason and common sense I ask, how those who demand equality can obtain it by averaging classes of income ? Look at an nuities. The tables give the value of female life at 15 years of age at 25 years' purchase, but go upwards to 70 or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only five years' purchase. Yet you propose to average these dissi milar classes—to bring up the value of five years' purchase and bring down the value of the 25 years' purchase. What possible average can these interests admit of? A life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of five years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life of five years' purchase, when called on to pay three times as much as he ought that the life of 25 years' purchase pays only half as much as he should do? (Hear, hear.) Still more absurd would be the attempt to average trades. Many trades are worth 25 years' purchase. r venture to say that if the matter be closely investigated it will be found that many trades are better, on the whole, than perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords oppor tunities for providing for children and relations such as no other pursuit presents. (Hear, hear.) Let us, however, state the case mo d era t e l y, and say that some trades are worth 25 years' purchase ; there are others not worth more than five, four, or three year s ' p urc h ase , an d h ow are you to average the interest of a trade worth three and another worth 25 years' purchase ? I must enter my protest against this averaging of classes. There is another topic of a painful nature connected with this branch of the subject, to which I must briefly allude. We have seen that laud pays 7d. in the pound according to a standard of value which does not depend on the will or testimony of its owner. (Hear, hear.) Trade, on the other hand, pays 7d. in the pound assessed by each trader himself. (Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that, in the majority of instances, the returns of the traders aro fairly and honour ably made. There are many cases, in trade, in which it is a matter of extreme difficulty to know what return to make, and I believe that in these cases the doubt is solved by the honourable trader against himself, and that he returns his profits greater than they really are. Let it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the trading classes of England generally the conduct which is pursued by some individuals. I am going to state an extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been generally done, but of what can be and has occasionally been clone. I will mention no names—l will violate no confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town where a new street was built. The persons who lived and carried on business in the old street, which was pulled down to make way' for the new one, had been charged a certain amount to the income tax. They had, also, of course, made returns to a certain amount under the income tax. When the new street came to be built they claimed compensation for the loss of their business. The amount had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the com mittee with details, I will state the amount of compensa tion which these persons—in number 28—claimed ; the amount awarded them by the jury, which may be taken as, on the whol e , an a pp rox i ma ti on t o th e real value ; and the amount at which they returned their profits under the income tax. Mere I to descend to individual cases, it would be almost impossible adequately to describe the partly ludicrous and partly shameful aspect which they assume. I will, therefore, deal with the matter generally, and say that the 28 persons claimed the sum of 48,1591. as compensation for their profits for a single year. The amount of compensation awarded by the jury was 26,9731., or a little more than half what was claimed ; but what was the amount at which they returned their profits for assess ment to the income tax ? They claimed 48,0001. ; they got from the jury nearly 27,000/. ; but the return of profits for assessment to tho income tax which they separately made amounted only to 9,0001. (Much laughter.) I deeply regret that the great body of honourable men who have made the name of British commerce famous throughout the earth, even more for its truthfulness than for its energy, should be degraded by association with persons who could perpetrate frauds like these. (Hear, hear.) But at the same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do exist; they are inseparable from the character of the im post, human nature remaining as it is ; and it is impossible when you are called upon to consider the question of the readjustment of the tax wholly to dismiss them from con sideration. Now sir, I leave thi s p ar t o f th e quest i on with this proposition, which I think will hardly be contro verted—that as regards the state of the case between land and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration, there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction of the income tax. (Hear.) I have three other cases still to consider ; and first I will take the case of schedule E, which contains the payments that are derived from the in comes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that no class of persons is included in schedule E, with the ex ception of persons connected with the Bank of England, who may not be called, in one sense or another, public ser vants. Some of them may be servants of local or separate authorities, as for instance the East India Company, but they are generally servants of her Majesty's Government. Now, with respect to the case o f th ese pu bli c sa l ar i es, I think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such incomes and life incomes. As they are usually held almost for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is little inferior to that of life incomes ; and their inferiority, in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by this—that they are usually progressive incomes, while life incomes are fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dis passionate man to draw a distinction between the case of salaried and life incomes. With regard to remissions upon salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways. At present there is a movement among the civil servants of the Crown for a change in regard to their superannuation funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The tide has but lately turned, for it is not very long since the right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Healey) made a motion in this house—and, unless I am much mistaken, he all but carried it—for reducing salaries of this description 10 per cent. Now, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that such salaries ought to be reduced by 10 per cent., I would suggest that it would be better to reduce them by a little less than 10 per cent. rather than break up the income tax on this account • but it would be much b e tter t o d ea l with publi c salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a separate arrangement, than to make them the occasion of an attempt to perform an operation which, up to this time, all those who have been responsible have unani mously declared to be impossible and absurd. Now, sir, I come to what is supposed to be the sore place of the in come tax—schedule C ; and when the committee have heard what I have to say, I will appeal to their love of justice, and put it to them whether schedule C, even if it stood alone, is not rather a reason why they should not break up the income tax than why they should do so. I know this is a bold challenge, but see whether I don't maintain my position. In the first instance I will read to the committee a testimony that has come from across the Atlantic, in order to impress upon them the conviction that when we approach schedule C we begin to tread upon very delicate ground. We wrote to the United States, to ascer tain what was done in that country, where taxes of this nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds, and 1 have here a short letter, signed by Mr. Everett, dated " Department of State, Washington, 10th of Febru ary, 1853," in which he says ; " Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th instant, inquiring, by direction of her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the public debt of the United States is subject to pro perty or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock, and also whether, in the acts authorising the contracting of the debts, any provision was made, exempting them from taxation. n reply, I have the honour to inform you that there is nothing in the constitution of the United States, or in the laws creating the public debt, which prohibits this Govern. ment from levying a tax on that debt ; the Governments of the respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution." (Hear, hear.) Now, it appears to me, upon a fair review of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admit ted on all hands—that we are bound to give some rational construction to those words in the loan acts which provide that the public dividends shall be paid free of all taxes and charges whatsoever. I think we are bound to give them a rational construction. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt thought the rational construction to give them was, that you should not look at all to the nature of the obligation, but that you should consider the dividends simply in relation to the re ceiver as so much income. lam bound to say that I think Mr. Pitt's proposal was the safest and the wisest. It has, at any rate, been acted upon for more than 50 years, and under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been borrowed or reborrowed. (Hear, hear.) I do not mean now to urge the difficulties you might have in the case of these acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construc tion, but what I do beg you to acknowledge is, that there is only one other construction, in any sense rational, that could be given to the words in the loan acts, and it is this —that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of the income, as tested by the price of stock when it is sold. I will suppose then the proposition now is, that we should reconstruct the income tax, in order that we may levy the tax upon something like the capitalised value of the in come. Considering the circumstances under which the in come tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under which that change is now suggested, I never can believe that it would be adopted by a British Parliament. Observe the effect which it would have upon the interest of the fundholders. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax ho said to those persons, "We have nothing to do with the capitalised valve or with price ; we can look to nothing but what you receive from year to year." At that time, when the fundholder was taxed upon his income from year to year, what was the capitalised value of his income ? Sixteen years' purchase. That was the average capitalised value of the fundholder's income for 17 years of the income tax, until the conclusion of peace. Suppose your new doctrines had been in vogue then, the fundholder would have paid only one-half of what he did pay ; and shall I be told that, after adopting one construction unfavourable at the moment to the fundholder, and after taxing him on the full value of his income for 17 years, when he could only have got 16 years' purchase for his property in the market, England and the English Parliament will now turn round upon that man, in the manner suggested, when the value of his pro perty has risen to 33 years' purchase ? If you now determine that the capitalised value of the fundholder's income ought to be taxed, I say that you inflicted the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he then consented to pay 10 per cent, upon the value of his income he had confidence that peace would be restored, that his income would become more valuable, that faith would be observed with him—l mean faith according to the common principles of equity and justice—and that, no Id vantage would be taken of that rise in value. But if the British Parliament sets the example of establishing in tini of war, when funds are low, the d oc t r i ne that you have nothing to do with capitalised income, and th en in time e peace, when the funds are high, se t s up the opposite of doc trine, I will not merely say th a t the character of this nation will not stand as in the time of your fathers stood, but I warn you that y ou must abandon e id it ea h o a f a taking the lead among all the borrowers of the world, and that you must prepare for a change in you r re l ations with those who have hitherto trusted you. (Hear, hear.) There are persons who say, " We ought to tax incomes at differ ent rates, accordingly as they proceed f skill." In fact, they would place incLasm propert incomes on the one side, and lazyor from incomes (a the other . nous Now, in my opinion, a great deal may b e said infavour of that doe- trine, but observe the effect it must h ave w ith regard to the public revenue. Th e l andholder must exertrii-nylf with resp_f...ci to hi s l an d , the ilopseliold t x as t o hi s houie and the mortgagee must eith er l oo k out himself, or yis' lawyer fo r l oo ki ng out after his money,—.:ead. I do no t h e b lievethere is any i ncome which is perfectly and entirely a i lazy ncome, except the income of the fundholder. (Hear, and a laugh.) If th at were so, the fundholder would enjoy' an entire pre-eminence in taxation, and the degree of that pre-eminen t it would r es t w ith you to fix. Ihonour the sense of justice of the hon. member for Montros e , and so I honour the sense of j us ti ce of those gentlemen—the ac tuaries —who have recommended the fundamental recon struction of this tax, and who do look at the durability of incomes. If they had made their proposals in 1798, Ido not know that th e f un d holders would have hadmuch reason to complain; but, on the contrary, I believe that, upon the whole, they would have been gainers. I think, however, that the p ro p osa l o f 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 1"] 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 15 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 tqat has taken place. At present it is otherwise. The whole amount of stock held in sole accounts is at the present moment 280,000,0001., and out ofthat about 60,000,0001. represents the incomes of persons who aro exempt from the income tax by reason of their incomes being under 1501. a-year. There is, therefore, a sum of about 2 20,000,0001. 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, 427,000,000/.—(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 33,000,003 i. 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 50,000,003/. and 60,030,000/. 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 foundedargu at w on h o h h e p a o b r p s u r e t d u i t y .t oosf areax taxing e l i d f . e n o t e f re l e s a m t e t n h t e s s w a m a s e ate for r e t i h n e co l m ife e -i t o at er r e e s f t orm me ez a h od av f e ew ha o a ct mu en t h l less compassion e s seemed t o regard their case at all. My opinion is that, if th e income tax were reconstructed i t would be very diffi cult to shut out the life-interest men ; but surely it would be very hard to raise the tax up on th e f unds 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 companies and associations holding funded property. Now, are you to lay an exceptional tax upon the capital of persons so engaged in trade ? I should say that it is very much better to leave English trade where it is, paying 7d. in the pound, in the place of the 9d. paid by land and houses, and with the power of invest ing money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes of banking, or for other Wades, without the fear of excep tional taxation, than to break up the whole system, and ensconce the trader in schedule C, that you may reimburse him by exceptions in schedule D. Now, the strongest case urged for the reconstruction of the tax is the case of sche dule C ; but in schedule C, against 220,000,0001. held by persons in their own right, you have 430,000,000/. 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 i sche dule D as respects the pr o f ess i ons . I h ave ma d e t 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 rath er more th an one -t wen tieth part of the whole income tax ; but there are several per sons who are returned as professional persons who, for the purpose of a new classification of the income tax, must be considered as traders, such as auctioneers, house -agents, and farm-agents. The country surgeon frequently com bines with his profession the trade and capital of a drug gist and apothecary. Solicitors, again, in many places are, to no small extent, considerable capitalists ; their ca pital is invested in their trade, and the income tax must ba 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 250,000,000/., which is about 1-22 d part of the whole in come tax. Now, Sir, Ido not at all deny that the case of professional men appeals to the sympathies. In my opinion it is one of the reasons which indicates that the tax ought to be a temporary tax ; but I hope the committee will pause before it rushes to the conclusion that upon account of the case of professional men (for I think I have in some degree disposed of the other cases) they will proceed to such a labour. I will not call it an Herculean labour, be cause an Herculean labour means a labour that Hercules could accomplish, and this I am persuaded he could not ; but to such a labour as that of breaking up and reconstruct ing the income tax. (Hear, and a laugh.) It would be a pity to find yourselves compelled to break up the income tax on account of those whose case is so limited in com parison to the whole range of the tax that they only pay 1-22 d part of the amount. But then you may say, " Why not exempt them altogether ; why not give them a fa vour?" And there is a great deal in point o f feeling to re commend that ; but there is a great deal in point of feeling to recommend many things in this world of ours, upon examination of which you find insupe ra bl e 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. I n th e first place there are the auctioneers, house-agents, farm agents, and others I have referred to, now nestl ing wi th in 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 profe ss i ona l men were to be entitled. Again, you would have great difficulty in knowing what to do with the clergy. Your feeling would tend with equal force both ways. You would think it extremely offensive to reconstruct the income tax on behalf of professional men, and yet to make the clergy man with 1501. or 2001. a year pay the higher rate. (Hear, hear.) But,'if you let him in, lam not so sure that you would be pleased to extend the same favour to the dean and the bishop. (Hear.) You will find the 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, h ave 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 class es . A large class of retail traders hav e an interest in th e i r t ra d es muc inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and trades, and businesses change hands much quicker. They are creatures of to-day, gone t o - morrow; and professional comparedtoehfonattisiatdhdeeeryr: with e a ar c .) ert l ai m n men, as a class, putting aside the exceptional case of permanencesick sthmt ee y a e smaller Ci e itselfokr me classwlikewise tsoe difficultyde scriptionust n eawa rn a h e e o we, of when nm e ti midstl greatestof their... i w. ia ill th fi e nd breaking up of the income tax, the case of the life annul . tants. Let me for a moment put it to you who these people are. Professional persons, at all events, are men charged by the Al m i ghty with the' care ofw ives and chil dren, and, generally, with a capacity to discharge that duty. But when you come lifet annuitants , you then deal with the desolate widow, with the orphaned daughter, with the def ence l ess woman whose right it is to expect at your hand s j ust i ce, tenderne l s, and protection. Are their incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady who has been bred in th lap of luxury, and who then upon the death of her parent e 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 th a t excep ti ona l t ax, an d ye t spea k 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 yon as men upon this point. I am convinced, whether the views of the present overnment be right or wrong, whether our propositions meet your approbation or whether they do not, that you n ever will consent to draw that distinction in favour of th e grea t an d energe ti c commerce o f this country-, and against the pittances on which the great por tion of these w omen su b s i s t. . (Hear.) Sir, the unparal leled indulgence of the committee—(cheers)—has brought portion me nearly to the c l ose of this 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 individu a l, or th e genera l l az i ness an d inattention of offi cial pers ons t o th e i r d u ti es, t h a t preven t s them giving effect to the wishes which many gentlemen laudably enter. w hicli] taro to see these inequalities of the income tax, wilt p( not , ieny, re aov '.l br aro ..) - a.i.ti.;tio'i - bot I v isas oat the kiud of difficult in which you find your, 015 , 1 volved when you set about that work, for I can credit fo fairly say—and I think if Ido not command e7,, ii ,4 as an individual, yet that the characters of my end wiil fal wiil dem an d f u ll credit for them—l can trulY,n we c o say that it has been our most earnest desire, u tL e f e el] with justice attain that object, to consult the P (';,, as in regard to the proposition which we might in s ndf o tt the income tax. (Cheers.) We have therefore r : n u d sr , and laboriously turned over the question again i,i c h it and have put it, I believe, in every light in % Il i - 0) 0 capable of being viewed; and now I will just gips t , ree l specimen of the way in which, when ou set about i struction of this tax, you find yourselves inyolval• yojito; suppose that, if the income tax be differentiated , I extend the favour to what are called terminable 3n . n ...%0 The terminable annuitants expire in 1860, and tin te i: a favourable case for those who wish to break t jP it , It come tam. Of course, they will get the benefit of o f i are worth so many years' purchase, and no niolL o yci *an tell exactly how much represents interest ano i i ro i o 9, capital. You proceed, then, by exempting the term yog`: annuitants. Is that all? By no means. - Win" t ess il with Government life annuitants ? Must you ne t 0 al" them also ? Is not their case substantially the ~3 ' „ for the others? A man lays out money on an annill oo o. life. Although the term of life is uncertain, such au o f 1)' has just as fixed a price in London as an anon' / r id expiry of which you fix the date. On the same r_ l if ‘ a therefore, you must exempt the Government life arlo flat' as you do the terminable annuitants ; but, if Y ° 1 1 3 04,,., you cannot think of anything so monstrous as v rti terests for life, or for a term upon leasehold Pr s :l i How will you be able to tax a man who has sulir the reiii j on which he has paid a heavy fine, and of whim' boll‘,l term of five or ten years unexpired ? The great alga . the interest in the property is not his, but the tan t or . the rever s i oner ' s, an d you must evidently give boas, fote, a share of the exemption. Then I must age I'' you of the c l ass h o ldi ng life interests in the funds' o (1 0 J can't draw a di s ti nc ti on between life interests in ' to sr, and life inter es t s i n leaseholds. They must help _O 7 the goodly co m p any of exemptions. After theaJ o i. those who h o ld jo i ntures and other annuities IV° ,tIP Certainly, a life annuity in the funds is one thilif e ' t o: life annuity upon land is another ; but the life in, ce the individual is alike in both cases. When you il; 1 ,0 , those in, what do you do with life renters and Wi 4 . ! 2 second a , successor of entailed estates, who may be a ,pe living in the East Indies whom his predecessor n . 13 14 have seen, and in whom he has no interest ? Thi s ps tr tedious to the committee, but these are practical ( i ii i l V, (Hear, hear.) Ido not say that there are no digi t o r between each of them. But what I say is this, tb 3 , t f o' l you come to define those distinctions, and to trelai,, on the broad ground upon which you take your staff ii4' ___ u ;ll 0,, say, "Here y ou w ill be exempt—there you mm 'l , exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes OP, mentioned with respect to which arguments for es e i ltY, might not easily be applied. The tendency 0f .. , ° /a c, exemptions, however, is the breaking up and dept of the tax. I do not say " relinquishment," beo ll ' o ti linquishment is one thing and breaking up i 8 L' •re!` Relinquish it for a time, and when emergencies foil e may do as your fathers did—take down the weaP ° o o 4 the shelf, and ma k e it serve you again for the end, to (Cheers.) To relinquish it is altogether safe, be ors; t, all altogether honour a bl e . B u t t o b reak it up is to eL I ~' the Mouse o f C ommons to venture upon s chemes o f ff may look well on paper, and may serve the purpO t f l eo s moment, but which will end in the destruction of P by the absurdities and iniquities which they involv e i, if that is to be d one it must be by those whose cooseter, enable them to t a k e a diff erent view of the chara c b 41 , '' of the destiny o f thi s great country. It will net ea?: by men who believe that, although you may enter d. that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you W i l l mires, will throw the whole finances of the en 3l / 41 .4 confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and 11; 3 0„ resort to which hitherto you have been able in 0 40; look as a course open to you in circumstances of w i , of Y and trouble. (Cheers.) Sir, the general views of V, jesty's Government with respect to b the income tag ,i i ,,i it it is an engine of gigantic power for great mai ° s ar poses, but at the same time that there are circevii attending its operation which make it difficult , ril f 1;0 0 impossible, in our opinion not desirable, to main - of ( a portion of the permanent and ordinary finance°d country. (Chee rs .) Th e public feeling of its i'l e,, iir , , is a fact most i mportant in itself. The inquisiti t ° ',4l l . tails is a m os t ser i ous disadvantage. And the 11."" which it l ea d s are evils which it i s no t possible ° I , A terise in terms too strong. (Hear, hear.) One qe i'', • hope this house will never do, an d th a t is iii,bvl.O' great public ques ti ons. Don ' t let them adopt 004 v, 'reconstructing the income tax to-day, and saying! t 0 . ,,, does not work well, we'll try our hands at it againt. e ,a row." That is not the way in which the relations 4 V . ,. are to be tre a t e d. D epend upon it when you- earn°,4,3Y: quarters with thi s su b jec t , when you come to meas-o see the respe c ti ve re l at i ons of intelligence and laiV e pi property, and when you come to represent those „ e rs°. in arithmetic a l resu lt s, you are undertaking an °lld‘',„' which I should s a y it was b eyon d the power of ma ll or . , duct with sati s f ac ti on, b u t w hi ch, at any rate, is I or. tion to which y ou oug ht not constantlyto recur; for ,;I,l°, hon. friend on ce sa id very properly, this country c° oat, bear a revolution once a-year, I will venture to a l .,. ( 1 0 0 1c could not bear a reconstruction of the income n o , 0 y - year. (Cheers, and a laugh.) Whatever yon . ol d gard to the income tax, you must be bold, you TA intelligible, you must be decisive. You must 11c 't og i x with it. If you do, I have striven at least to ponif is well as my feeble powers will permit, the almao litf : 4 ' c a mt oh i n o l sb y tye votauohlfeu vital willagrb valuable s s aibmme b po re nogrg a ut c iaa h ilnycj o el f : fi teol i ty: /in ; ' yourtion I resoucowunoultrdlyo jeopardisingrces. you keep this tax or whether you part with it, t so 'l ,,,'' should either keep it or leave it in a state in which ''' be i,'" be fit for service on an emergency, and that it ivi ll a ew j ; possible to do if you break up the basis of yourine ° 2,:avir, (Hear, hear.) Then you will ask me, "On what i" t , ' w oo f ! do you mean to proceed ?—you have made an arg u l bo w s country, :n o : iolefve cert a inly ir i e t t far as you have gone, to show that the tax cann ° a 0 3 ', constructed or amended." What we wish to do, au er P till we shall a i m at doing by the measure which I shall foda is this : —W e wish, in the first place, to put a nend I ',c u ncertainty resp ec ti ng the income tax. (Cheers.in fe l j think it unfortunate that political ircuinstance' 1'61.64 the last two or three years led toa state e of doubt in mo lif to the continuance of the tax, a n d have even hegtSlit t i degrees a feeling on the part of the c public that the ~ ,,c , „is is about to be entrapped unawares into its perr, a f , (Hear, hear.) My belief is, that much of the une'," say, ' ing that prevails is traceable to that source, and 1 s '"" 'ir far from thinking that the mere asking of the comp; to renew this tax for a given term, in opposition tc' , 0,1 you to make it perpetual, would be sufficient to an : „ s y eV: A anxiety or to remove that doubt. There are a certain boot i of transactions with regard to which the uncertaintr t ,', V A i the income tax tends most un favourably —such ao:r„ tY, I minable annuities, for example. It is very desiraw.rtbi,; certainty should be restored to these transactions., '„1,1 i', it also most desirable that effectual measures on - A ~ taken to mark this tax as te m poraryß a t 1 - Of a tax.. ao A so much mean to commit the Government to an& o"; opinion to be acted upon in future years. °L.' a 5 l opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the,'S"f l it, permanent ordinary portion of our finances. But : tell state the wish of the Government ~to proposeii' porary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their words t o ° ll Of them or yourselves as to what you will do under ro pc' i , cumstances at the expiration of the term which We P o iti l ; to fix for its continuance now. I propose by P,,, 0 0'; enactment, by the measures which I shall invite J it oll adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament in s pot i v position that at a given period it may, if it think fit' 0 ' withithat tax. (Cheers.) We are most anxious to 01'; what can be done, in order to meet the public feelin 4 o ' bsf i the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling w ig afi a f not only respect, but sympathy, while we do o ot a t ie 4 that it is our duty, as persons charged with the con o f a., public affairs, to shape our measures according, v e j 0, feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have examined 0 practical form which they are to take, and tried it l i yao , light of our understanding. (Hear, hear.) Wo P r t ( f ) o o,f sir, to introduce certain miti ga ti ons i n t o the opOra.,ie the income t ax . W e propose to extend the prineld'oj„, commutations, which is n ow a p p li ca bl e only to ill; n it~ , professions also. (Hear, hear.) A more important 1 5 gation which we propose to make is this :—Thorf o the general feeling th a t a man oug h t to have, at any I ,_ . '" ill) ° , opportunity o f i nves ti ng t h e savings he may maa ° t e, his income w ith ou t b e i ng li a b le to the income tai. • 0 0 3 them. We do not think it possible to make pr°,." - ~ of that ki n d app li ca bl e to savings simply as sua"clar, we can do is t o say , "If you c h oose to invest your It ft 1 , in the form of a d e f erre d annuity or life assuran''''ol9 premium which y ou may pay upon that deferred annoloil or life assurance up to one -seventh of your incoloL e te l not be chargeable to your income tax, but may be del, - e a';' from your inco me t ax b e f ore it is charged. " (Hear, ~10! I am not at a ll p repare d to say that we would stop a' ill° if it were possibl e t o d o more. At the same tinie'llo, plan has considerable recommendations. Id o not sa o 1 4 iv it will meet the c ase o f persons who being affiictect,,,, o sickness ca nno t , except under peculiar circums"`-tl,l insure their li ves, because, unfortunately, cases of et. sort it is b e y on d the power of the Legislature 0 2 1 1 11 ! But what Id o say i s this—that it is a relief which Or admit of very extensive application. I cannot reck° ll , e / the redu c ti on f rom the receipts of the tax in conseflitp of it will be less—though, of course, it is an uncertw'o when we look to the total amount of life assurance i ° of erf country—than 120,0001. a year. It establishes, ho no invidio us di s ti nc ti ons between one class and an ° f it ; It is ope n t o a ll th ose who choose to avail themselves,?, but while it is ope n t o th em a ll , we k now that pra.,e'pjs/ the cl a s ses w h o are i n the habit of assuring their iirtf(r just those very classes whom it is your main object io ol lieve by the reconstruction of the tax—namely, the c del' of professional men and of persons who are depen i t° upon their own exertions. I think it will be necessa ti l .? propose that Government should itself become a ss o bif of life. If it is to undertake that charge, as will pr ° ol o° be the case, it will assure on the same principles as, 00 ° on which it is now a vendor of life annuities. But t° til I say that our object is to meet the public feeling as do ° , inequality of the tax, and while I specify these ra ° 1. 4 .' goinr., some way to effeA that object, I have more t ° ,,, oe. before you upon this subject. And pray understan d of Do not let me through my neglect be misunderst°ol fail to state clearly the position of the Government. _ I C' we understand to bo the sentiments of the count i''' what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are dispel, to o share in, is, that th e i ncome tax bears upon the whf iii, hard upon intelligence and skill, and not hard enour e s;f; property as comp ares ; with intelligence and skill. t r sei 4 hear.) I hop e th a t I state with accuracy, not the P he /I measures that we propose, but the object whiel l .a%ll, l ?. l l constructors of the income t&x have in view. "#. FP, that be their object—if they think that at pree en .,,,"aer t ; and intelligence are too severely pressed, and that P i !" Or d under the income tax pays too little, let me remain that they must not form their judgment of the 0 1 0 194 of classes from one single tax, or from another sing „Doi, but that they must look to the general effect of the C o o' system of taxation. (Hear, hear.) And all I iroPlll r' ° ' them in that respect at this moment is, that they g ns ref o i serve their deci s i on upon th e question whether the:_.7i 0 0 0 meat proposition s u ffi c i en tl y meets the case of w'' DO' intelligence, as compared with property, un til thof t bel heard me throughout, if their kindness will pernai t , e gsf` f to do so. (Hear, hear.) Our proposition, then, it l ,„:it fo r to the income tax is this :--We propose to renor_,;,oo" t two years from April, 1853, at the rate of 7d. in the rat it The committee will recollect that I said we arta th e our duty to look the whole breadth of this diffiell,blaoor:g face—not to endeavour to escape it, not to eim e° '„f i le_,l.:; attenuate, but to settle, if the committee would e n ') r f i, the whole question of the income tax. (Hear, ho r '',A.l 3ll ; propose, then, to re-enact, it for two years, from frol',, .1853, to April, 1855, at the rate of 7d. in the pound',Jo ti p; April, 1855, to enact it for two more years at 6 0 * yer pound—(alight murinurs)—and then, for three inlacil —(laughter and murmurs from the Opposition ... 4 ( 10% which prevented the conclusion of the sentence) 4 0 wonder at the laughter—for three more years — fr °2 o , 3 l '' s 1857', at sd. (Hear, hear.) Under this proP o , l o income Utz will oxpiro on the sth of April,llB6o. I'l NEW ROSS ELECTION. Mr. HEA.DLA.M reported that this committee had come to the resolution that Mr. Charles Gavan Duffy was duly elected for New Ross. VOTE BY BALLOT. Mr. HENRY BERKELEY gave notice that, on the 11th of May, he would ask for leave to bring in his usual bill for taking the vote of electors by ballot. REFORM OF THE LONDON CORPORATION. Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the noble lord the mem ber for the city of London, whether, in the 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 excellent administration of that force) to a consideration of the advantages of consolidating the whole of the metro politan police under one management ; also, whether that commission is to be appointed by act of Parliament so as to enable it to pursue, with adequate power, its inquiries ; and whether there be any objection t o a dd to its duties a like inquiry into the corporation of the adjoining City of Westminster. Lord J. RUSSELL said there would be no objection to the commission of inquiry into the working of the city po lice. With regard to thesecond question, he had to state that the corporation of the city of London had expressed their willingness to give every assistance to an inquiry by com mission, and there would, therefore, be no necessity for a bill on the subject. As to the last question, he did not think it was desirable to extend the inquiry to Westmin ster. Lord D. STUART asked the noble lord the member for the City of London, whether a protest has 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 J. RUSSELL said that a protesthad been received but he could not say whether it could be laid on the table of the house. On the motion of Sir B. Hall, the evidence taken before the Tynemouth election committee was ordered to be printed. Mr. M. MILES asked the Secretary of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of any instructions 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 that no report had yet been re ceived on the subject. Mr. A. WYSE asked Lord John Russell whether it was the intention of h r Majesty's Government to introduce, either in this or the next session of Parliament, any measure to abolish or revise the laws relating to the settlement and removal of the poor, or to alter the present mode of raising the rates for the relief of the poor, by 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 the policy and general effect of all the laws relating to set tlement, removal, and parochial assessment? -Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government were of opi nion that there would not be sufficient time to discuss a measure on this subject this session, but a measure would be introduced next session. Mr. PETO asked the member for the city of London' if it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the 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 Salford Education Bill ? Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not his intention to pro eed with the bill until after Whitsuntide, when he hoped the report of the committee on tho Manchester and Salford Education Bili would be laid on the table. In answer to Mr. DIVETT, Mr. WILSON - said that the officers of the Mint were using every endeavour to meet the demand for small silver, I but the demand for gold coin being so great, it was impos sible for them to issue more coin. The amount of money turned out weekly was 600,0001., a much greater amount than had ever been issued before. NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. In answer to 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. `ME BUDGET. M On the moti on f or go i ng into Committee of Ways and eans, Petitions were presented by Lord Hotham, Mr. Bright, Mr. Peto, L or d Dudley Stuart, for different medical socie ties ; by Lord Stanley and other honourable gentlemen, praying for an alteration of the income tax so far as it bears upon precarious incomes ; by Mr. Kershaw, from Stockport, against the taxes on knowledge ; by Mr. Ewart. praying for the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese ; b3r ColonJ Harcourt, from the Isle of Wight, against the duty on malt and hops • by Mr. Gaskell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Cobbet, and Mr. Milnes;for a re peal of the certificate tax. Twe house then went into committee, 5Tr. BOUVERIE in the chair. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said—The annual exposition of the financial state and pro spects of this country, upon ordinary occasions, affords abundant materials of interest to this house and to the country, and of anxiety to the person charged with the preparation of that exposition ; but on the present occa- non, perhaps, that interest on the one hand, and, certainly, that anxiety on the other, are greatly enhanced by a variety of circumstances, including among them the number of motions which have recently been made in this house, in- dicating the increasing eagerness of the people with respect to financial questions. (Hear, hear.) Political events, shocks which have enfeebled or overthrown Administra tions, and which have made it necessary to adjourn from year to year questions of taxation, have likewise greatly THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 19, 1853.