The Sun. — London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YEsTER,DAy.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his Beat on the woolsack at five o'clock. Viscount DUNGANNON presented a petition from the Protestant Association of Cork, praying that their lordships would indignantly reject a measure that might be submitted to them, interfering with the endowment of the Established Church in Irland. The noble viscount also gave notice that , on Thursday next ho would move au address to her Majesty, praying for a return of the number of benefices to the See of London under 1001. Per annum, the name of the incumbent, and also the names of those benefices not containing a residence for an incum bent. • THE PRINTING OF THE HOUSE. Ems' STANHOPE moved "That a select committee be appointed to consider whether any, and, if so, what improvements could be effected in the printing of the minutes and journals of the house, and especial'y as to putting upon record both the numbers and the names of the peers who take part in the divisions." Earl GRANVILLE acquiesced in the motion, which he thought would remedy the defects at present existing in the printing of the minutes and journals of the house. The motion was then agreed to. THE SEE OF LONDON. Lord DUNGANNON asked lf it was the intention of the Government to introduce any bill daring the present session for dividing the see of London, and whether they contemplated bringing forward any urea sure to provide for bishops who, from advanced age or other infirmity, might be desirous of being relieved from episcopal duties by relinquishing their sees. The Earl of HARROWBY said that the subject re quired great consideration, but a commission bad been appointed to inquire into the whole subject. With re spect to the question relating to retiring allowances to bishops who might wish to resign their sees, the subject was also under the consideration of the Government, but at present were not prepared to bring in a bill with such an object. MARINE FORCES BILL. This bill was read a second time. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTEItDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following private bills were read a second time and ordered to be committed :—Andover Canal Sale ; Cal cutta and South-Eastern Railway Company ; Cwm Amman Railway ; Thames and Medway Conservancy. TEA DUTIES. A number of petitions were presented from the tea Merchants and dealers of various parts of the country against the proposed alteration in the tea duties. Mr. MOFFATT presented a similar petition for Lord Palmerston from the Tiverton tea dealers. (Laughter.) DULWICH COLLEGE. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any measure would be introduced during the present session to carry out the recommendations of the Charity Commission with respect to Dulwich College ; and, if so, whether legis• lation would originate in the House of Lords or Com mons f_ . Mr. BAINES said it was the intention of the Go ♦ernment to bring in such a bill. It would be introduced in the House of Lords before Eavter. THE INCOME TAX. Major REED called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the wording of his resolution rela tive to the Income-tax. It made no mention of the pro posed alteration of the tax, and he asked if it was the intention of the Government to adhere to his plan rela tive t• the 7d. and sd. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the resolution was drawn in the usual way. In committee he should propose his alterations. ORDER OF VALOUR. CaptainSCOl3l l 4L asked the First Lord of the Trea sury when the Order of Victoria for Valour would be put into operation, and whether he had any objection to the statutes and regulations under which that Order bad been established being placed upon the table of the house I . . . . Lord PALMERSTON said that the navy list of those entitled to the Order was complete, and that the army list was nearly so. As soon as it was complete the list would be published. He would lay on the table the statute referred to. INDIAN RAILWAYS. Mr. OLIVEIRA asked the President of the Board of iControl whether the Indian Government would extend .the system of a guaranteed rate of interest upon further capital proposed to be invested in railways in India be yond that already agreed upon ; several railway schemes having been recently submitted to the public, upon - which the question of a guaranteed rate of interest upon capital was left in doubt Mr. V. SMITH said that the Indian Government had laid down no positive rule against any future guarantees relative to Indian railways, but considering that they had guaranteed 20 millions to be laid out in rail a ays it was not advisable to extend that guarantee. It was sincerely hoped that railways would be sufficiently re munerative to induce companies to embark in Indian railways. THE IRISH POOR. In answer to Mr. MAGUIRE, Mr. BOUVERIE said that in consequence of his not receiving the support he expected last session in the bill 'be introduced on the subject, be did not intend to bring in another hill of the kind this session. He would, how ever, consider any bill the hon. gentleman might intro duce on the subject, and if he could he would support it. Mr. MAGUIRE said that he would adopt the sug gestion. SUPPLY OF GUANO. In reply to Lord NA/IW, Jr. LABOUCHERE said that some difficulty had arisen with reference to the supply of guano from the native tribes near the islands of Jiblea, Hanki, and • Gurzoud, on the coast of Arabia, believing they had some right to the guano, which was now under investi gation. Messrs. Ord, Hudson, and Hayes had a licence which gave them a monopoly of the trade for five years, four of which were unexpired. THE MEG ERA TROOP-SHIP. Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the adjournment of the house to put some questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty, relative to the ship which left Portsmouth with 500 troops, and had to put back in a few days from the vessel having sprung a dangerous leak. He said that he had received communications from some of the officers on board the ship stating that when - the ship was about one hundred and forty miles from land she sprung a dangerous leak, and tons of water came in every minute, so that the cabins were flooded. He gave a detailed account of the state of the ship from the information which he bad received, which, be said, was at variance with the former statement of the, First Lord of the Admiralty, and there was ne glect in sending] the ship to sea in such a dangerous state. Sir C. WOOD denied that he stated or admitted on a former occasion that the ship was sent to sea in a dangerous state. His information was derived from a report made to him, which showed that the ship had been sent to sea in, as was believed, a sound state, -but that on examining her in Plymouth dock, it was found that two screw holes, about the size of a man's finger, were open seven feet below the water line, through which the water came, but only in such quantities that it could be kept down by a hand-bucket. The ship was properly in spected before she went to sea. The right honourable baronet read the reports of the various officers in , re ference to this s hi p , w hi c h con fi rme d hi s p re vious state ment. No pains were spared to render the ship sea worthy, and the officers of the ship inspected her before sailing, and expressed their satisfaction of her condition. The report of the military officers showed that the arrangements for the troops were satisfactory. He re peated his former statement that she left port in an efficient manner, but 'that she met with rough weather, and was injudiciously p ushed a g ainst the sea which strained ' her, - and her leakage was an u navoidable accident fro m s t resso ; f weather. atheofficers were o had been given. to General Gascoigne, who had the command of the camp at Colchest er ; and, until he had received his report he could not state anythirg decisive. It would be a bad precedent to afford relief in this instance from the army fund, and to break through the army regulations, in reference to soldier, marrying. He saw no reason for their marrying-- (laughter)—for they were very young men, and were only enlisted for 1i years. BILLETTING SOLDIERS. In reply to Mr. COWAN, Sir G. GREY said that notice would be given o f Ow clauses to be introduced into the M u ti n y A n t. NEW WRIT. A new writ was moved for North Leicestershire, in the room of Lord Granby, called to the Upper House. RETURNS. Several unopposed returns were ordered. WAYS AND MEANS. THE BUDGET. Tho order of the day for going into Committee of Wa3 s and Moans having been read, _ Mr. GLADSTONE presented a petition from a com mittee of West India planters and merchants, expressing the surprise and disappointment with which they had learned the intention of her Majesty's Government to pro pose the continuance of the war tax upon sugar. They re presented that if the proposal should be agreed to they would be subjected to serious loss, that the supplies of sugar would be discouraged from coming to this country, and that the sugar-market would be annually disturbed for a series of years. They therefore prayed the house not to adopt the scheme of the Government. On the question that the SPEAKER do leave the chair, Mr. DISRAELI rose and said—Sir, before the house proceeds to consider in committee the financial arrange ments of her Majesty's Government I ask them to adopt the resolution of which I have given notice. In offering some statements and arguments to the house, which I hope may persuade them to adopt that resolution, it is my in tention, so far as I can, to conduct the discussion in that temperate spirit which I think discussions of this nature essentially require. This is a financial debate, and so far as lam concerned I shall not introduce into it any topic which may in any way lead the house to depart from the consideration of those financial details which are now before us, and a sound judgment upon which appears to me to be of the utmost importance to the community at large. We have, and always will have, great differences of opinion in this house on political subjects of importance, whether fo reign or domestic. I dare say that differences of opinion will always exist in this house as to the manner in which our foreign relations shall be conducted, and there will also be differences of opinion upon subjects such as that which occupied our attention last evening—namely, as to what classes shall be the depositories of political power in Eng land ; but there is one question upon which there ought not to be a difference of opinion in this house—namely, the importance of maintaining our finances in a whole some condition, and of taking care that the Government of the country do not impose taxes which are unneces sary. Now, I willingly and at once approve the course which has been proposed by her Majesty's Government with regard to the war income tax. Since I have devoted attention to the subject I have always considered that the existence of that impost involved a public grievance. Considering the spirited manner in which the people of this country supported the Ministry during the late war, —considering the generous and almost lavish manner in which they placed their resources at the disposal of the Government in that arduous struggle.—l think it would have been a great political mistake if the people had dis covered that they were saddled with a heavy burden which did not in its origin come from their own free will, and which, according to their understanding, had been ob tained almost by a clerical error in an act of Parliament. 1 have no doubt the people of this country are prepared at all times to endure such burdens and to make such sacri fices as they think are necessary for the public advantage; but if they make a sacrifice they require—and I think it is not unreasonable that-they should require—that at least they shall make it of their own free will, and that it shall be an act of their spontaneous devotion. Now, when we doubled the income tax to carry on tho war there is no doubt that the whole community heartily acceded to the proposition. They agreed to double the income tax in order to carry on the war, and they consented that the in creased impost should continue for a year after the war had ceased. That was clearly understood throughout the country, and by all classes of the community. The lan guage by which that burden was entailed upon them for another year was introduced into an act of Parlia ment of comparative insignificance, not into that by which the tax was doubled, and it certainly was not at the time understood by the great body of the people that the consequence of our legislation would be not merely to double the income tax, but to e n f orce that double tax, granted for carrying on the war , f or two years after that war had ceased. When the people discovered this they were surprised and indignant, and it became in my mind, not a financial but a political question—a question whether it was politic to allow the disposition of the people, which during the war had been so ad mirable, to be soured by such circumstances, and whether, if we continued pedantically to adhere to the let ter of the bond, we could in future emergencies appeal to popular feeling with equal success. Considering that this was a political and not a financial question, I deeply re gret that her Majesty's Ministers should have permitted that agitation to exist which in the autumn did prevail on this subject. I know it may be said that Parliament was not sitting at the time, and there was therefore no meansof communicating to the country the disposition of the Go vernment to evince their sympathy for the spirited man ner in which the people had supported them in the war by conceding to their request of exemption from thisdoubled tax. But, though Parliament was not sitting, there are other means of communicating to the country the intentions of the Government, there are means either by a speech or by a letter, by which we know that public opinion can be tranquillised or can be agitated, and I regret very much that her Majesty's Ministers did not think it consistent with their duty to communicate to the public during the autumn the intention which they have since announced in Parliament. The noblelord the First Minister, for example went down to Manchester because he wished to express to the country hisopinions upon an important political treaty. The noble lord might when this agitation had assumed a disagreeable character, when not merely a grievance was complained of, but the very principles upon which thetas was to be continued were discussed, have availed himself of similar machinery, and have communicated the determi nation of the Government to redress this public grievance. However, we were disappointed in that respect. There was another opportunity at which that communication might have been graciously made, that was at the opening of Par liament. I think it would have been most gracious to have announced in the Speech from the Throne that this grie vance should should be redressed. That opportunityalso was lost; and in consequence I myself announced on the first night of the session that I should ask the opinion of the house upon the subject. I mentioned that what I now say, that I considered I was dealing with a strictly political question, and not with a financial one ; that I be lieved there was a great public grievance which ought to be redressed ; and that I thought it advisable and proper that the redress of that grievance should take place imme diately after Parliament assembled; and that, as the Minis ters themselves did not offer such redress, I thought it was consistent with the duty of a member of Parliament not connected withthem to make the attempt. In so doing it was not my intention to interfere, nor did I consider that I in any way interfered, with the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I did not ask him for his budget ; I did not ask him for his estimates. If the Government had, on my motion, taken the opportunity of announcing their policy with respect to this grievance, they would not have been pressed for their financial measures ; they might have brought them forward after the expiration of an interval of a month from this time. However, those measures are before the house, and it is necessary that we calmly and accurately discuss their effect. Sir, I have no wish at any time to indulge in prospective finance. I agree that it is more convenient, I should say most convenient, in discussing the financial position of the country, to con fine ourselves to the current year, whose fortunes we are endeavouring to lay before the house. (Hear.) But on the present occasion, if I indulge in prospective finance, I must remind the house that I am commenting upon a statement , which is, in its character and provisions, essentially pro s ective. (Hear, hear.) It is not I who have introduced the prospective p element into our debates on this subject; it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who has brought before the house a prospective budget founded upon an other budget eminently prospective — viz., that of the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) for the year 1853. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other night, did not confine his ken to the commencement and end of the ensuing year. On the contrary, the right hon. gentleman, not only upon that, but also upon another occasion, sketched the position of the Exchequer with re gard to finances for a period of three years. On Friday night—the Light on which ho made his first and principal statement, the right hon. gentleman summ ed u p his views under the name of his " plan," and said, " If my plan is adopted I shall be able to do this and that and other things in the course of the next three years." The right hon. gen tleman did more than this. His plan is prospective, not not merely as regards his schemes, but also as regards our pockets ; because he proposed new taxes which are to be levied for a period of three years, and which are oven to vary during that space of time, Therefore, those who should find fault with the motion which I am about to in troduce to the notice' and I hope to the acceptance of the house, on the ground that it interferes prospectively with the finances of the country—though I do not suppose that upon mature reflection such an objection will be urged must ve to the must have forgott en th e b udget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the na t ure of the financial arrangements prospective discuss. whu ha It is, beelement I mw r e repeat, e t a t hh , te t o h ou e au C lrl h s l s cv::shlplicaolrhno,r introducednow the Exchequer ha dis cussions, and it is utterly impossible to form any opinion upon the arrangements which he proposes; it is utterly impossible to offer any criticism upon the schemes which he has submitted to our notice, unless we consider their bearing not merely upon the present year, but also upon the subsequent years before the period arrives when, as we had hoped, the income tax was, according to the arrange ment of 1853, entirely to t ceao t cease. ow, sir, I ha ve th e t wo gener al objections to e dilated on Fridlya n ev u e mn g. whlcl t r h it u h i f c s ri g ht hon, gentleman • ble consequences of th at plan will be to th a t the inevitable barrassment, and to render the remission cause financial erl 'n 1860 not merely difficult but absoluely of the income These are the two great objections which Iten impossible. These plans of the Chancellor of the Ex tartans to the financialtel described to the house on Friday chequer, as elabora y permission of the house, with very little night. Now, with - a that as su cinct as possible, I will appeal to figures, an en d eavo ur to show the grounds on which I intend to su pp ort these objection s. I have at this moment very little corn stimates of expenditure and- in meat to snake upon the e t offered for the year come which the rig ht hon. genleman ire capt ouisly into the e house will 1857-58. Ido not wan t to in qu accuracy or wisdom tatement Th * of those s entleman s. esti mated the ex- recollect that the rig ht hon. g 8 at the sum of 65,474,0001., penditure for the year 1857-5 income of 66,365,00 0 /., which was to be defrayed by an 800 000/,and 900,0001. revenue of between on the leaving a surplus estimates observe P I do not in mentioning this es omission of provision f or the Persian war. i I will not dwell upon the fact that this country is at present at war with distant countries, but that in these estimates no pro vision is male for the expenditure to which those wars will lead. lam still willing to believe that we are to have peace with Persia, and that we are not at war with China. ft is, of course, impossible entirely to shut out the know ledge of existing circumstances and the cbnsideration of their influence upon our finances; but I will, es much as may be, remove them from the question, and will, if pos sible, confine myself to the financial facts and the financial speculations which have been introduced to the house by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the year 1857.58, then, we aro to have an expenditure of 65,475,0001., with an income of 66,365,0001. The house will recollect that one of the most important items of that estimated income accrued from the income tax itself. The right hon. gentle man besides the 7,000,0001. which he will obtain if we raise the tax 2d., will be in the enjoyment of 4,250,0001. sterling arising from the produce of the war income tax. Now, sir, having stated to the house the expenditure and income of 1857-58, I want to put before it also the income and expenditure of the year 1858-59, the second year of the right hon. gentleman's plan. As regards the income, I have taken as far as I could the figures which were afforded to me by the right hon. gentleman. The house will understand that any figures that I read, unless they have been furnished by the Government, I offer, of course, with diffidence; yet in my general conclusions I havegiven so large a margin that if my views are right in the main the results will not be affected by any inaccuracy on the score of figures. This, then, is the estimate for 1858-9,the second year of the right hon. gentleman's plan :—He took for 1857-8 the estimated revenue from the Customs at 22,850,0001. This calculation supposed the duty on tea to be Is. 7d. per lb. instead of ls. 9d., the rate for the current year ; and it reckoned the duty on refined sugar at 18s. 4d. per cwt., instead of 203. But in 1858.9 the duty on tea will be 2d. less per lb., and that on refined sugar ls. Bd. less per cwt. I, of course, have the greatest difficulty in forming an estimate of our probable loss on tea and sugar, c in the event of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposi ,.. tion for 1858-9 being accepted. I therefore Offer, unaffect edly, rather a suggestion than a formal statement of figures ; but I have estimated that the loss may be on tea 469,000!., and on sugar 442,0001., making together a total of 911,000/. I take the Customs, then, for 1858-9 at ' 22,339,000/. • the Excise at 17,000, 0 001. (being the figures of the right hon. gentleman) ; the stamps I take at the same amount as in 1857-3—viz., 7,450,000/. ; the land and assessed taxes at 3,150,000/. ; the income tax, reduced to 7d. in the pound, I take at 7,000,0001. ; the Post-office at the same sum as in 1857-B—viz., 3,000,000!.: the Crown lands at 263,000/. ; and the miscellaneous revenue at 1,200,0001. The total income from these various sources will be 61,404,000/. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer here made a remark impunging the accuracy of the right hon. gentleman's calculations.] I think that my figures will be found to be correct, but I shall not stop to go over them again at this moment. Now for the exnenditure of 1858-9. I take the estimated charge for the debt at 28,550,000/. This, of course, ought to include the interest on the whole of the war debt ; but there must be deducted from this charge the interest on the 2,000,000!. of Exche quer-bonds, amounting to 70,000/., which will make 28,480,000/. Next, I take the charge on the Consolichtod Fund at the same scale as in 1857-B—viz., 1,770,000/. ; the Army I take at 11,625,000/. ; the navy at 8,109,000/. ; the packet service at 965,000/. ; the civil ser v i ce a t 7,250,00/. ; the collection of the revenue at 4,215,000/. ; and the super annuations at 475,000/. This gives a total of 62,889,000/. There are two other additional items, the first of which is the 2,000,0001. of Exchequer-bonds payable in 1858-9; and the sum of 1,500,600/ for the sinking fund in the same year. These items added to the former total produce an aggregate of 66,389,000/. I ought to state why I have taken the army, the navy, and the civil services at the same figures as the right hon. gentleman reckoned them for the year 1857-8. The right hon. gentleman, when he made his financial statement a week ago, in applying himself to the discussion of the great estimates, entered into an elaborate argument to show us that no very considerable reduction could be looked for on these items. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—That is this year. Mr. DISRAELI—I beg the right hon. gentleman's par don. He will have an opportunity of following me i n the debate, and it is not necessary that he should interrupt me. But, unfortunately, on Friday last the whole tenour of his argument was that on the whole of these items— the army, the navy, and the civil service—the increased charge was of a permanent character, because he * compared the estimates of 1857-8 with those for the three years im mediately before the war, and stated that the current year is the period of transition from war to peace. The current year has witnessed a vast reduction in our expenditure. But, our present estimates not having been laid before us by the Minister of the Crown previous to his financial state ment, I will take the liberty of introducing them now in detail, and show from analysis the excess of the present over the corresponding estimates in the ti me o f p eace . I will prove, in fact, that there is no ground for reduction with the exception of one item, on which the right hon. gentleman laid very little stress -and I believe rightly so—viz., the unfulfilled contracts. He analysed the expenditure under six distinct heads; and, though I will not weary the house with minute detail, I must recall this circumstance to the right hon. gentleman's recollection, to show that his argu ments cannot apply to 1857-8, the ensuing year. Indeed the whole of his reasoning tended to convey to us the impression that, exclusive of the unfulfilled contracts—to which he attached but small weight—the principle of reduction could not be carried out to any appreciable extent. With regard to the navy, having given us five great items of excess, the right hon. gentleman said that one of them was for an in crease in the marines and coastguard. This, he told us, was the result, not of a war act, but of an act passed in time of peace. Ho next informed us that the price of pre visions is high--one of the other causes of the increase ; thirdly, that the scientific vote was augmented ; that the fourth cause of additional expense during the ensuing year is the item of unfulfilled contracts, which I have al ready mentioned. We have very recently obtained some information that will guide us in ascertaining the amount of the last-named extra charge, and we may, I think, safely conclude that it will not be very considerable. Then the right hon. gentleman said that the vote for steam ma chinery and coal would be greater than before in conse quence of the progressive introduction of steam power into our navy—that owing to this circumstance we must look to an additional expenditure, permanent in its nature. Then came the increase in the factories in which to repair our machinery, for enlarging our docks, and for the exten sion of the packet service. Now, none of these items for next year, with the single exception of that for unfulfilled contracts, is for purposes of a temporary character. There fore I do not suppose that the right hon. gentleman antici pated the possibility of making any reduction upon his estimates. Continuing the line of remark to which he has called my attention by his interruption, and coming next to the army, here again we had from him the same descrip tion of analysis. And the house will observe, whether we look to the artillery branch, to the creation of new military trains and a new hospital corps, to the item of 225,0J0/. for warlike stores (the result of unfulfilled contracts), to arti ficers' wages, or to education, works or buildings, that the result of the analysis was that, in the right hon. gentle man's opinion, reduction was not the means by which the financial arrangements of the country could be carried into effect. Therefore I believe lam perfectly justified in taking for the expenditure of 1858-9 the same estimates as he proposes for the ensuing year 1857.8, and in neither case adverting to the existence of war, or to the possibility of fresh misconceptions, which might lead to an increased expenditure. The consequence of that will be that, with an expenditure for 1858-59 of 66,300,0001., and an income of 61,000,0001., you will have an apparent deficiency of about 5,000,0001. sterling. This, then, is the result of the second year of his plan. I think I may fairly ask the house whether this is not a result which should at least call upon us to reflect, and whether, before we sanction finan cial arrangements which, upon the face of the statement of the right hon. gentleman, threaten such an issue in the second year of his scheme, it does not become our duty, previously to going into Committee of Ways and Means, to examine the whole scope and tendency of the plan of the Government, and clearly ascertain its probable effect ? But if the second year of the scheme leads to a deficiency of 5,000,900/., what becomes of the year 1659-60--its third year, and the year, too, which is to witness, according to the general idea of the house, the extinction of the income tax ? All the causes of deficiency which prevail in 1858- 59 equally prevail in the case of 1859-60, with the addition of another reduction of the duties on tea and sugar. Sir, I shall not attempt to estimate exactly what will be the amount of the second reduction of those duties ; but the house will see that the general effect of the right hon. gen tleman's plan would be that at the end of its third year we should find an accumulated deficiency, according to his statement of Friday last, about 10,000,000/. This is what would happen just as we have arrived at the point when we ought to take off the income tax producing 7,000,000/. sterling. That appeared to me to be a very grave position of affairs. (Hear, hear.) What would be the condition of this country if, in the year 1860, at the termination of the right hon. gentleman's plan, it found itself with an accu mulated deficency of perhaps 10,000,000/., and at the ante time were asked to renew the income tax? We all know what would be the inevitable consequences of a proposal to renew the income tax, with aconviction in the country that it was to form a permanent feature of our financial system. I venture to say—as I said the other night—that every con troversy which has been appeased, though not settled, by the belief that the income tax was to cease in 1860 would be revived. (Hear, hear.) Every class, every section that is now under the belief that it entered into a compact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time wuuld come forward to demand the reason why that compact was violated. (Hear, hear.) Yon would have one body of men who would say, "It was because we were told that the income tax would cease in 1860 that we submitted to the succession duty." (Hear, hear.) The Irish mem bers—l believe the income tax is not very popular in Ire land—(hear, hear) —naturally, remembering the peculiar circumstances under which they were first led into this tax—would very properly come forward and say, " We acquiesced in the extension of the income tax to Ireland 1 because we were told that it was part of a system which secured its extinction at a particular period." (Hear.) As for England itself we can form some idea by the agita tion of the last autumn of the character of the questions which would arise here. Graduated scales, distinctions of assessments—the old quarrel between precarious and per manent incomes—whether trade profits are to pay as high a rate as rents derived from real property or the dividends of the public creditor—whether professional remuneration is to be taxed at the same rate even as trade profits — who are to be exempt—these are the questions which you would then have to discu ss ; and under what circum stances ? Apparently, according to the financial state ment of the right bon. gentleman, with a vast accumulated deficiency. (Hear, hear.) That appeared to me, calmly considering the statement of the right hon. gentleman, the result at which we should arrive. Financial embar rassment, and instead of the prospect of the extinction or even mitigation of the tax, the very impossibility of its extinction, seemed to me to be insured by the policy which the right hon. gentleman introduced to our notice on Friday night. We have had a financial system which was very popular in this house, and which was supported by the great body of gentlemen opposite. Th a t was a prospective systemm hey also,thbce c amo a : and in its extensive ken it ranged over a w id er territory than that which the right hon. gentleman occu pi e d the other evening ; but the basis of that scheme was th e ex ti n ction of the income tax , and every measure of i m p or t ance co nnected with it had some relation to the year 1860, a t w hi c h time that extinc - i was to take place. But th e new sc h em e of prospective finance has a pe cu li ar an d di s ti nc ti ve f ea t ure of its own, not the extincti on , b u t th e p erpe t ua ti on o f th e income tax. N (a eh r have before i n thi s coun t ry su ff ere d un d er d e ficits, as, I V l e s in ay t , I i m e a c n o y u a t country hon. gentlemen generally; at any rateTh e havey we ua ü been y a cause of great an x i e ty t o thi s h ouse, and of deep despon dencythisna g e o r a f e n t them—that an d. misfortune. they though the n y use a ng s e ex u u e ptn n e c ce e ts o da f lty m is t m he a ; a ccumulated gradually, and, length, from their vast dimensions, a formidable and menacing character, still everybody was obliged to allow that, how ever deplorable such a result might be, it could in a great degree be accounted for by inevitable causes, We had a deficiency in the year 1841, which no doubt was to be traced in:some measure to a reckless reduction of taxation in 1839 ' ? PERSIA. Mr. LAYARD referred to the rumoured treaty th a t bad been signed between Russia and Persia, by a' w hich a portion of the Turk been ceded to Russia. It was territory had a question of great importanc e to this country with re f from rdto our or the Judian possessi ons, and required an explanationminist Government ; and if he bad asked for an explanation, n bad made remo nstrances to the Russian this country. He asked if the Persian negotiationsin at Paris had been broken off, and he complained of the delay of the production of the papers relating to Persia ; Lord PALMERSTON said that he knew nothing of. suck a treaty, except that stated by the hon. member. It was not true that the Persian negotiations at Paris had been suspended or interrupted, and be had no rea son to alter his former op inion as to the result, and under thes e c i rc umstances he c onsidered a discus3ion of the matter in that house m ust have a very in jurious efflittle ect—(hear, hear) —and he ask ed for a It would further delay before laying the p a p er on the table. Minister , or not have been right for her Majesty's Govern went to in the house, !lister on make any remon strance with the Russian such information as that given to mi.. NEwb S t rI G I A PPING OF GOODS. sent plan adopted at th return of imports and —T E called attention to the pre (lc e custom-houses relative to the custom-houses of goods at the various ports, and put a question reference to it. Mr. WlLSOprna s aid that the tables were produced by he knew of no order trad e. . So far as bis knowledge went, might have appeared t ha t where information, the clerks change in this matter. It where there was a laxity of have called on the mer chants. Custom House might to be more particular in future . and desired them DESTITUTE SOLDIERS'WIVES. Sir J. ViItRELL again call ed thethe attention of the destituteti state of the Under secretary for War to soldiers' wives and ohildren outside . One womanl.he women were the carne at Colches ter. They amounted to 180 families. pennyworth h with sever, suffering the greatest ntisery. potatoes children bad on one day but a and a halfpennyworth of greens to sub,iBt on , and had it Alit been for private charity, the consequ m en a c r e r ' s ie m d must have been frightful. There were 30 you ng living on a penny a-day ; and the women and children h ai l +? sleep in - bovelq, and wherever they could . 7 the s_tnpago of the soldiers' , Plat lastruct . The misery arose i e ,s7. alr. FREDERICK PB.b.u * ~" i4 -. ~_ 19na THE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRTARY 21, 1857. • but it was produced much more by the visitation of Provi • dance. We had had three bad harvests, and we bowed to the decree of a Power before which even Parliaments must with humility bend. But this is the first time that a Chan cellor of the Exche9uor has come forward with a plan creating an enormous and increasing deficiency—(cheers) —and that, too, in the face of a House of Commons, the cardinal point of whose financial policy has been through out its now l ong ' ex i s t ence to accom pli s h the extinction of the income t a x. S o th a t we h ave brought our finances to this position,—that the year 1860—when the policy of 1853, on whi c h the hope and expectation of Parliament and the country have rested for the extinction of the in come tax, was to have boon accomplished — is to witnes not its extinction but its perpetuation, awl instead of receiving that relief from taxation to which we have been looking forward with such anxiety, we are then to be called upon for new taxes to meet a deficiency which may amount to not less than 10 , 000,600/. (Hear , hear.) I am , of course, perfectly willi ng to admit that figures of this kind must be received with considerable indulgence on both sides of the house. (Rear, hear.) There may be counter vailing causes which to a certain extent may alter thee( calculations; the consuming power for instance; on which so much of our financial system very properly rests, may increase, though we most remember that it is at the pre sent moment a consuming power at high prices, and there fore we must not rest too much on that. But admitting that your customs may increase, this great fact remains, that in the year 1860, if we pursue the financial plan intro duced on Friday night to its consequences, instead of wit nessing the extinction of the income fax, we shall have to grapple with a colossal deficiency. Under these circum stances I thought it my duty to place on the table the re solution to which I am about to ask the house to agree. Let us see what, if I am right in my estimate of the con sequences of the plan of the right hon. gentleman, would be the wisest and most temperate course to adopt. If the house really believes that we are menaced by a deficiency, what can be more judicious than to proceed upon this ex ' cellent pri nc i p l e o f finance—which, indeed, must be the basis of all soun d f i nancial schemes—to adjust the esti mated income an d expen di ture i n suc h a manner as is best calculated to prevent a deficiency, and then in pursuance of a policy to which I believe this house is pledged to pro vide in the best manner we can for enabling Parliament in the year 1860 to remit the whcle of the income tax, as was promised to the country in 1853. That is the object of the resolution which I placed on the table; but no sooner had I given notice of this resolution than a most extraordi nary change occurred in the financial world. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the table—the house being in Committee of Supply— moving a vote to which there was no opposition, and he took advantage of that opportunity to offer to the house a supplement to his financial statement of the preceding Fri day, introducing elements, in my opinion, entirely incon sistent with the statements, a:•guments, and plans which he had previously laid before tr. lam not complaining of this; the right hon. gentleman has a right, of course, to make two financial statements if he chooses—there have been Chancellors of the Exchequer who have made even more—(laughter)—l am only putting before the house a narrative of these incidents. And what was the right hon. gentleman's statement of Monday niszla Is was appa rently add...y-1 to my resolution. which was then in the possession of the house. He said, very f ran kly, I ow n, " I can answer the motion of which notice has just been given at once," and, mentioning me, he sa id I seeme d t o fear a great deficiency in the years 1858-9 and 1859-60, but that there was in reality no fear of any such deficiency. gentleman, " what for those years" (he m ' a ' hwmtiylhl estimatesatveel t 0, ,ld u " so s fo a nt i said a ethe Friday,p r e i n g db h iu t t tu b r o e w, that is nothing); "and I will tell you how I mean to meet that expenditure." The right hon. gentleman, with great frankness, gave us his estimates for those years, and they varied very slightly, but not in any degree so as to affect my argument, from the figures which I had assumed before he made that sup plementary statement, leaving, therefore, if my first con clusion was just, on each year a vast d e fi c i ency. " But, " says the right hon. gentleman, " there will be no deficiency, because we are going to adopt the expenditure of 1853-4." No doubt if the Government be going in 1858-59 to adopt the expenditure of 1853, that is an important element in the consideration of the financial plan. But if that be the case, although I do not complain for a moment of the pre viousathaethsetataeamtheneat authentic criticisms into which I have been betrayed by the right hon. gentleman making his statement on Friday— which I considered to be a statement of authority—incon sistent with that which he made on Monday, I say if that s M ta e t n e - - a a are to compla e int, Mon day, as I ment, what are the irresistible inferences which we are be the case , d to draw from it? In the first place, one naturally asks if there is to be that vast reduction in 1858-9 which is to prevent these enormous deficiencies, what is the reason o an w d i without o w u e t that the reduction has not some effect in 1857-58 ? (Hear, hear.) Let us know what are the causes which will enable the Government in 1858-59 to make a reduction of which, according to the representation of Frid a y, no hope was held out fur 1857-58. (Hear, hear.) If I go through all the heads into which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ela borately analysed the estimates which had not been intro duced by their respective Ministers on Friday—if Igo through his analysis of all the causes of excess of expendi ture in 1857-58 over 1853, I cannot find—except in that poor item of "unfulfilled contracts," for which a large es timate, including gunpowder and timber, would be 500,x001.—that any of them, according to his views, would be less influential in 1858-59 than in 1857-58. But now, after that statement of the right hon. gentleman, I want the house to consider this :—What would be the effect if in 1857-58 the Government would do that which they say they are prepared to do in 1858-9? Let me show to the house the effect of that upon our income and expenditure. We are to fall back in 1853-59 to the expenditure of 1853-54. Now, the gross expenditure of 1853-54, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday, was 55,840,0001. Add to that the increased charge of the debt, 716,000/. ; add the Exchequer Bonds to be paid off in 1857.58, 2,000,0001; add also the Sinking Fund for 1857-58, 250,0001., and the total will be 58,836,0001. That is an estimate for 1857-58, drawn up on the expenditure of 183-54, which is to be the basis of 1858-59. Now, this is very important; and let me press it therefore upon the at tention of the house. Having ascertained that we might Lae et an expenditure of 58,836,000/., let us see what the the income of ]857-58 would be on the supposition that the income tax was not increased beyond 5d., and that there was no increase in the tea and sugar duties. The income estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday was 66,366,0001. From that deduct for the 2d. on the income-tax, 2,000,000/. ' deduct al so th e tea and sugar duties, which I take at 911,0001., and we have then the income for the eneuiug year 6 2,455,000 z., against an expenditure of 58,836,0001. We thus should have, according to the new position of Monday, a sur pl us at the end of the year of upwaids of 4,000,0001. in the ex chequer without adding any new taxes whatever, without increasing the income tax, which ought to be only sd. in the pound if we adhered to the old system, and without adding to the taxes upon sugar and tea. The right hon. gentleman, then, by the statement which he made on Mon day, has opened a mesb'intaresting subject of speculation which I am sure every hon. member must appreciate. (Hear, and a laugh.) Now, h ow d o we stand in this mat ter ? because it is exceedingly difficult to deal with a finan• cial statement which has apparently two colours and two forms and aspects. If the statement of Friday be the au thentic statement, we are about to be landed in a great de ficiency, and there is no hope whatever of seeing the end of the income tax in 1860. If, on the other hand, the version of Monday be the orthodox version we not only get a re duction of the income tax immediately, and we not only have no recourse to those indirect taxes which have created so much:odium out of doors, and which are so much opposed here, but we have a fair prospect also of getting rid of the income tax in 1860 altogether. But it is impossible that two results can be more different. (Hear, hear.) If we are to adhere to the budget of Friday, it's deficiency ; if, on the other hand, we are to fall back, as we were told that we were on Monday, to the expendit u re of 1853, we have be fore us the most rosy prospect that a financial Minister ever introduced to the House of Commons, especially at the termination of a war. (Rear, hear.) I should think, then, that a debate upon the scope and tendency of these financial propositions is not at all irrelevant or unneces sary. Now, I know it w ill b e s aid that in the estimate which I have offered there is an element as regards the last two years of the right honourable gentleman's plan, assuming that :he really adopts the expenditure of 1853, which I have omitted ; but I assure the right honourable gentleman that I have not forgotten it. According to the estimate of income and expenditure for 18 - )7 and 1853 drawn up on the basis of the expenditure of 1853 I have shown to the house that without any increase of taxation whatever there would actually be left in the exchequer a surplus exceeding 4,00 3,000/.—that is to say, that there would be left in the exchequer about that sum which the right hon. gentleman will obtain by that large portion of the war income tax which is not yet paid. That is the exact sum probably which would be found as surplus in the exchequer. Otherwise, without the war income-tax for 1857-58, the expenditure and income would exactly balance themselves suppose that you took the expenditure of 1853. The right hon. gentleman, however, may say to me, " But if you take the expenditure of 1853 there is an item of vast amount which will enter into the calculation of 1858-59 and 1859- 60—'which is not included in 1857-58—I mean the charge for the sinking fund for the war debt of 1,500,000/. There fore, if the income and expenditure of 1857-58 did balance themselves after that surplus derived from the war income tax was deducted there wouldrbe a deficiency of 1,500,0001. upon those two years." Well, Sir, I grant th a t. I grant if you established the expendit u re 0f1,853 as the basis of your operations, and if yo u did a ll th a tl h a ve s k e t c h e d out, that you would find a deficiency in consequence of the sinking fund for the war debt of 1,500,0001. for the last two yearaof the right hon. gentleman's plan. But remember that we shall have iu the exchequer a surplus upwards of 4,000,0001. I do not mean to say that that 4 ,000,0001. can legally be ap plied at the present moment to the liquidation o the sink ing fund, or even to the payment of the exchequer bonds of the last two years. The law respecting surpluses and ba lances is too rigid to permit of the Chancellor of the Exche quer's applying it without appealing to Parliament; but see what the effect of the statement of Monday is :—Here you can, by falling back to the establishments of 1853, carry on the affairs of the country without any new taxes whatever, and with a large surplus at the end of the current year of upwards of 4,000,0001. in your exchequer ; but in the last two years of the right hon. gentleman's plan there will be a deficiency in consequence of the action of a special sinking fund for the liquidation of the war debt, But when we recollect that that large balance has been obtained by war taxation in a time of peace I do not see why the Chancel lor of the Exchequer, instead of imposing new and vexa tious and odious taxes upon the people, should not come forward and ask the ROllBO of Commons whether in equity that surplus of 4,000,0001. might not be applied to the liquidation of the war debt. (H ear. ) In that case, accord ing to the statement of Monday, the right hon. gentleman might carry us through the three years of his scheme with out increasing any of our taxes, and might he enabled to deal with the income - tax by the aid of the terminable an nuities and such other means as might then providentially arise. (Hear.) What a different plan has the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted ! The Chancellor of the Exche quer, in this state of the finances, comes forward and pro poses new taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer enters into au essay as to the comparative merits of direct and indirect taxation—a barren subject for this house and the country, for whatever their relative merits may be it is clear that our revenue must be derived both from direct and indirect taxation, and we must appeal to both to a very large extent. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself in this position, according to the Friday view, that he comes forward to propose the most odious of direct taxes and the most odious of indirect taxes. (Cheers.) Sir, with regard to the income-tax, I am not one to show that this house will resist a fair introduction of direct taxation in our system, but direct taxation has never taken a more in tolerable form than in the income tax. (Loud cheers.) It has been condemned by the voice of th e cou ntry and the decision and policy of this house. I need not enter into the catalogue of its enormities--that it is unjust, unequal, and inquisitorial. There are very; few who have listened t o me who have not had personal p roo f o f th ese q ualities. A. laugh,) These are grievances which are not to be borne in time of peace and with the income tax as a permanent feature of our national systenA• In a national emergency these grievances are ,pt felt, At such j moment private grievances are absorbed in ISublic patriotism, and no one thinks of its injustice, its inequality, and its inquisito , rialness, if he believes that the honour or existence of the country is at stake. (Cheers.) In such an emergency no one criticises the tax; but just in proportion as it is ex empt from criticism at a period of public danger, the mo ment a period of tranquillity returns you will find a re action of odium to that degree that the tax is, perhaps, more criticised than it deserves. (Hear.) But the result is that income and property tax is the most odious form If direct taxation, and I protest against that easy mode of rrgument which prevails, and which holds that any per son who opposes the income tax is opposed to direct taxa tion. ( Hear.) When I oppose it it is its the most odious form of direct taxation. Then, what is the main article of indirect taxation upon which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer is going to inflict an impost? Sir, if there be one article more than another which, in my opinion, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer ought not to interfere with, it is the tea duty. (Cheers.) I do not say this for the con venience of debate or of Parliamentary combination. I despise and repudiate such ideas. When I had an oppor tunity my views on this subject were sufficiently shown. had not the glory of carrying the reduction of the tea duties, but as the organ of Lord Derby's Government, I was the first British Minister who tried to grapple with that question. (Cheers.) I therefore express the deep conviction of my own mini on the subject, and I say that tea is the very article that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have dealt with, and that the most odious of direct taxes and the most odious of indirect taxes are not the sources of revenue that ought to have been selected when in the face of the papers I referred to to-night it be comes a matter of controversy whether any now taxes at sll are required. Indeed it appears to me from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer's statement of Monday, which I take from the observations of the right hon. gentleman to be the authoritative one, that we should wa s t e our ti me i n criti cising the former budget. Well, then, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really determined to fall back on the expenditure of 1853, there is no cause for any new taxes at all. Now, sir, I know that some gentlemen are very muc h alarmed at the word "reduction," and, Sir, unquestion ably rash and precipitate reductions, aiming at no precise object, and founded upon no precise information, are the most dangerous courses to which Parliament can ever have recourse, and ought never to be sanctioned by this house. But, on the other hand, it is certain that wise reductions, aiming at distinct and practical objects, and founded upon ample and authentic information obtained by experience and research, are measures which, of all others, deserve the respect and approbation of Parliament— are the mea sures of all others which it is not only the privilege but the duty of this house to sustain and originate, and are the measures which are most entitled to public approbation and gratitude. (Cheers.) When some gentlemen, there fore, are alarmed at reduction, I am surprised, and I am tempted to recall to their recollection what is the reduc tion which appears to terrify them. In 1452 it was my lot, as the organ of the Government, to accept the esti mates prepared by our predecessors at the moment we suc ceeded to office. In the course of a few months circum stances were very much changed. there were many con siderations of an alarming character. The political hori zon was clouded. There was great alarm in the public mind that the defences of the country were not sufficient. We had to consider that difficult question, and although our Government was weak, we resolved to come to Parlia ment with supplementary estimates, the principal object of which was to secure that this country should have an effi cient navy and an efficient ordnance. We came to Parlia ment—not, be it remembered, to a friendly Parliament— but on our representations Parliament instantly supported us. I believe I may say that the money entrusted to us was skilfully and efficiently employed, and I believe that no money ever voted by Parliament was more skilfully and more efficiently employed. Witness what took place in our navy and in our artillery. But the necessary con sequence of the supplementary estimates of the Govern ment of Lord Derby was that when we retired from office our successors accepted entirely the policy which we had originated in improving the defences of the country—a policy which they completed in a manner that was deserving of all praiss. More than that, they enlarged those supplementary estimates, and the consequence of Lord Aberdeen's Government following that policy was a still greater increase of the estimates. The estimates mounted after us to more than 2,000,0001. The house will remember that when the Chancellor of the Ex chequer talks of reduction he talks of reducing the esti mates not even to what they were in the time of Lord Derby's Government. He is not going to reduce them to the sum they amounted to after they were increased by the sup plementary estimates. Sir, I hole that hon. gentlemen on both sides will well consider this question of reduction. We have before us several very singular precedents upon which the House of Commons has acted on this subject. I need not dwell upon what took place in 1816, although it may be well that hon. gentlemen should remember those circum stances. You had a King's Speech in which the estimates were described by the Ministry as having been prepared with the utmost regard to economy. The income tax was then ten per cent. The country gentlemen came down to Parliament., and protested against the income tax. It was the country gentlemen who mainly terminated the income tax in 1816. It was not, however, merely the country gen tlemen who protested, nor was it the precipitate action of men who acted upon the impulse of the moment, and not from thoughtfulness. The income tax was opposed by many eminent merchants of the day, and also by the greatest mer chant that England perhaps ever had—Mr. Baring, the late Lord Ashburton. He took the most decided course on the subject. He was a man of singular ingenuity. but of a pru dence amounting to timidity. He was of all other men most deeply interested in the maintenance of the public credit of this country. And what did Mr. Baring say ? Mr. Baring said, " You must terminate this income tax entirely ; you must listen to no compromise," for the Chancellorof the Ex chequer of that day was prepared to accept a reduction of the income tax to 5 per cent. As to any plea in excuse for the income tax that there was a tail of expenses left by the late war, " believe me," said Mr. Baring, " that if you listen to that tale' it will never disappear." (A. laugh, and hear, hear.) Let the house remember what that war was, and what was the position of Great Britain. The battle of Waterloo had only been fought a year before, France was occupied by our armies. We had increased the national debt during the previous 12 months 67,000,0001., and yet under these circumstances, Mr. Baring was sanctioned and supported by the country gentlemen of England in demand ing the abolition of the income tax. (Hear, hear.) On that occasion Mr. Baring declared— " That it was impossible, as long as ministers could show any tail of the war expenses that they would gave It up. If they could once get the tax fixed in time of peace they would gain their object, and not a momber of the house would see the end of it. No ono who had the least experience of the conduct of G rvernment could doubt that, instead of producing redemption of debt, it would produce wasteful establishments and extravagant expenditure. It would only be by ridding the country of the tax that Ministers would be induced to practise economy." Are not the opinions of such a man to have their influence on us ? (Hear, hear.) What happened ? On the 25th of March the house threw down the income tax. In May the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward with a new budget, and it was found that we could get on extremely well without this 16,000,0001. of taxation. (Hear, and laughter.) That is a ve r y st r ikin g hi s torical instance familiar to the house ; but there is another instance that occurred in our own time—an instance which very many now sitting in the house must have been witnesses of, but which I am sorry to say almost every gentleman has forgotten. So vast and rapid have been the events of modern times that the recollection of what occurred in 1348 with respect to taxation in this house has been entirely obliterated, as I learn from the personal experience of many of its members. (Hear, and a laugh.) In 1843 there was a deficit. The political horizon was very cloudy, and the chief Minister of that day came forward, not trusting, if my memory bo cor rect, even his Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the ofaffairs the house demandedthat tthhearte wasthey should statement, b u t l en di ng t o it a ll th e au th or it y o f the Premie rs hip an d th e Fi rst L or d o f t h e T reasury. H e told a deficit, a i n gi d ia t n h t a a t n t d hestate watch ful. He then proposed that the income tax of 7d. should be raised to ls. Now, that was no slight proposal. Five pence did not then bring 5,000,0"s0/., for my Irish friends had not then the opportunity of contributing to the Ex chequer through this medium—(laughter)—but they will perhaps permit me to say that if they support the financial -proposition of the Government they may rest assured they will have to pay it for many a long year. (Cheers and laughter.) The Government of 1848 wanted to get 3,500,0001. additional into the Exchequer, and their pro position was to raise the income tax to ls. What hap pened? Why nobody listened to it. (Laughter.) The Government were told that if they wanted 3,500,0001. they must find it somewhere else. The noble lord (Lord J. Rus sell) withdrew his proposition, and he got his 3,510,000/., in another way. (Hear, hear.) That was another instance in which the house and the country by their determination prevented an increase of the income tat. (Hear.) Now, sir, lam for wise, not wild reduction. (Hear.) lam for reduction with a definite object, founded on definite know ledge. Ido not want to confine my criticism to the mili tary and naval estimates. There is another branch of the estimates which I think might be subjected to wholesome criticism. Let us examine those estimates. Don't let us .attempt to do anything that would frighten the " oldest inhabitant" from his financial propriety. (Langhter.) We are proposing no measure which will be hostile to public credit ; but, to my mind, we are taking a course which will confirm public credit, and which will not add to the burdens of the people. (Hear, hoar.) Let us do of our predecessors did in 1816, and as we ourselves did—though we had forgotten it—in 1848. (Hear, hear.) Let us sup port the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his wise policy of Monday. Let us forget that awful budget of Friday, which has frightened the isle from its propriety. (Cheers, and laughter.) Let us dismiss from our minds any increase of income tax, any increase of the tea duties. Neither appears to me to be necessary. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now got upon the right rail, and we shall support him in the policy which, " better late than never," he has now adopted. (Hear, hear.) But, is this change in the policy of the Minister any reason why I should change my resolution ? My resolution appears to me to be peculiarly necessary to the position in which we find ourselves. We don't wish to express any want of con fidence in the Governments which, as we heard yesterday, would be likely to alarm some very influential members of the house. We don't want to take the government out of the hands of the Administration, and give it to a Parlia mentary committee. ' That is a course which I would never recommend. I don't wish to see a select committee taking ' or even sharing, the responsibility of the Govern ment. (Hear.) Let us; therefore, carry out this resolution, which I think lays down the right principle on which our finance should always rest—the fundamental and cardinal policy of finance to which this house should ever adhere ; let us require that, before we take into consideration, or rather before we sanction, the financialarrangements of Government, we must have the estimated income and ex penditure adjusted in the manner that will appear best cal culated to secure the country against the risk of a defi ciency. (Hear.) Surely, that is the principle on which we ought to act, remembering that what I have said is the cardinal financial policy of this house, and the mode best calculated to throw by in 1860, without financial embar rassment, a balance which will allow the entire remission of the income tax. I think that is a resolution the Go vernment may accept, and all I shall do will be to ask them to act upon it. If they will act upon that resolution, if they will really adopt the policy which on Monday appeared to be in the ascendant, and take the estimates of 1853 in the manner then set forth, I, for one, have no wish to embarrass the Governmentacting in ;;;CCci;cTmfitTtnces. ( Hear, hear.) If I saw a bona fide determination on the part of Government to carry such a policy into effect, I would even counsel those whom I might be presumed to influence to offer some assistance to the Government in those circum stances--I should not care even for the first year—though I think increased taxation is unnecessary—and would be readliy in some degree to give my assistance to the Govern went in such an enterprise. If we saw that in 1860 we were to get rid of the income tax—if we saw that there was to be no considerable permanent increase of the duties on tea, I would be disposed to make some sacrifice to meet the convenience of Government. But if the policy of the Go vernment is this—that,though we may make sacrifices by WA increase o direct and indirect taxation, we are only in pound. (Hoer, hear.) At the same time, the hole.. should bear in mind that a sum of 1,200,0?0/. has been transfer re I from the Censolidatet Fund to the annual votes, which is a traesferof expenditure, not au increase, and merely ap un ier a Oifferent heel But, Sir, there has been of late years a great increaeo under this head of charge, owing in a groat measure to the policy which has been received with s., mach favour in the house, and particularly found a teocetes ausoug henouraWe gentleman opposite, of trans- As r i i t " i g s e a t' m a a g t 6 t s e ro of oaf l r o o c m el e ee im ture to the national exchequer. will allow me to state te therrarsetarnicees'orpeitrehmapssotfiltehishoclanr rector which are UOW charged upon the civil estimates. There is the iteru of erieuinal prosecutions in Eegland, for merly paid out of the county rate, 250,000/. ; the same for Scotland, 12, 100/. ; maintenance of irieoners in the nuited kingdom, 126,090/. ; Poor Law chalees, Ile,ooo/. • county constabulary, 14E3,0e01. ; the same fo; Ireland, 644.0' making altegether m reliefof local rat ea, 1,297,000/. There has been also a transfer to the civil estimates of an item of 216,000/. from local fees in County courts. There is also a charge, which must he considered is the nature et relief to hie il expenditure, for e tucation in treat Britain, whice this year ate:eines to ~2 ;,000/ , ant tor Ireland to Iq,ooo/. The branch of science and art taker; 43,10 N , and these three items make together 755,00 e/ The t o t a l o . f items of this class is 2,320,0001. Th a t i s a branch of ex penditure which has been growing, and is still on the in crease, and in the reduction of whick any executive Go vernment will find itself comparatively powerless. The next charge which will come upon those years is the charge for debt. If the revenue should be found insuffi cient, alter defraying the service of the year, to defray the repayment of debt charged by law on those years, it will of emirs° be open to Parliament when that time arrives to consider whether any other arrangement may be made for the discharge of that obligation. I should be extremely sorry if I thought that anything would interfere . with the fpoary paymentn rent o f the in fourthe b e oBnadcosewedhiinchg years At the same time if it should be found that they can only present t of and ei ethheePith3rre be imposing on the:country taxes of a very onerous descrip i tion—if the finan c i a l pressure is severe—of course it will be open to the Parliament of the day to consider whether the burden can be - disttibuted over a greater number of years. At the same time my hope and conviction is that it will be possible to defray them in the years when they fall due. (Hear.) But with regard to the sinking fund which is due in the same years a different reason applies. ought, perhaps, to explain to the house the way in which that sinking fund originates. The sinking fund for the three loans of 6,000,0001., 5,000,0001., and 5,000,003. was made to commence in the same manner as the income tax was made to cease—that is to say in a year after the Ist of April succeeding the ratification of peace. That was the case in the first two loans, because they were contributed in the course of the war. The third loan was contracted after the war, and therefore a definite period was fixed for its payment. When the first and second of these loans were contracted the duration of the war was quite uncertain. It might have lasted 5 or 10 years. If it hsd lasted for any period of that sort,it would have been impossible to pay out ,of the annual revenue the exchequer-bonds that would hsva become due daring its continuance, and it would have been absolutely necessary to raise new loans for their discharge. But as the war happily lasted only 3 years it so happens that the first payment out of the sinking fund upon the three loans falls in the same year as the Exchequer Bonds ; and hence arises a great accumulation of the redemption of the debt in those three years. The house will observe that the the end to be landed in a deficit, then I thi❑k the House of Commons cannot too speedily and decidedly interfere to prevent a result so calamitous. (Hear.) Iu the belief that if the house will sanction this resolution we shall be able altogether to avoid new t •xaticn by wise and well-consi ders(' reductions, I now place it in ; our hands, and com mend it to the impartial t,ot earnest consideration of the [loose of Commons. (Laud cheers.) The question having been put, The CHANCELLO It of the EXCHEQUER said—Con sidering that when, on the first night of the session, the right bon. gentleman gave notice of a motion on the in o fine tax, ho had evidently considered the subject with great deliberation- --considering that although ho announced his intention some days afterwards to persist in that mo tion, he has since allowed it to disappear from the notice list—considering that the motion now before the house is a motion substituted for the one originally presented—and considering that the right hon. gentleman, who holds so eminent a position in this house, and is so experienced in financial affairs, has, we may assume, thoroughly investi gated the matters upon which he has spoken, I cannot, sir, but congratulate myself at finding that ho has offered scarcely any objection to that which is, properly speaking, the finan cial plan of the Government. With the exception of a few remarks upon the absence of estimates of the extraordinary expenses of the Persian war, andalso of what he thought fit to call the Chinese war, and some general remarks upon the odiousness of an income tax and the odiousness of a tax on tea and sugar, I douotremember that the right hon. gentle man introduced into his address a single observation bear ing upon the financial plan of the year. With regard to the want of an estimate of the expenses of the Persian war I have already stated that we shall present one, and I included in my statement of Friday last a sum of about 260,0001., which we estimated would be the amount of the first por tion of the extraordinary expenses of the expedition that we should have to defray. Itis therein not correct te say that there is no estimate of any portion of those expenses. What the right hon. gentleman calls the Chinese war has ' been carried on by vessels upon the station, and no extra ordinary expenses which we could lay before the house have hitherto been incurred. As to the right hon. gentleman's general declamation on the subject of the income tax, I think, consideringthe number of years daring which that tax has now existed since it was proposed for the second time by Sir R. Peel—years of peace as well as of war—that the house will hardly expect thatl should enter into a for mal dissertation as to the policy and necessity of that tax under certain circumstances. With regard to the tea and sugar duties, which the right hon. gentleman declares to be the most odious of imposts, I really am at a loss to know upon what ground they are to be so designated. Mr. DISRAFILI—OnIy the tea duties. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—ForaIong time tea and sugar have been included among the articles upon which a Customs' duty has been levied, and the duty is not subject to the objection of being a protective duty, inasmuch as these articles areproducedexclusively abroad. oe . amount to be redeemed in the present year is 2,250,000/. cupy a position somewhat above that of mere necessaries, They are also articles of general consumption, but they In each of the two next years the sum will be 3,500,0001. such as bread and meat, and for a series of years theyhave It would be a perfectly legitimate finan c i a l operation, if Parliament should think fit to do so, to postpone that sink been regarded as proper subjects for taxation. lam there- lag fund for three years. The only effect of such yostponee fore at a loss to know whythe right hon. gentleman should ment would be that the first loan, for example, instead of stigmatise the duties upon tea and sugar [Mr. Disraeli repeated that he had only mentioned the tea duty] being paid off in 1873, would not be paid off till 1e76, and so with regard to the other two. It might be found desir aole to adopt that course, for when so large a sum as peculiarly odious, or why h e s h ou ld con d emn m e for 3,500,0001. is to be redeemed within a year, and that re having selected as an object of taxation an article upon demptiun takes place by the purchase of stock by the Go which a greater amount of duty than is now to bs raised vernment, they raise the price cteheorfefsot effected o kasagaiu n nsttnty: them has in time of peace, up to the present peri o d, been levied theselvesa t n e d rois.l redemhaveption i stated the full extent of the re for a long series of years. I must assume, then, th a t the curable gumption of debt which would be going on in those three financial plan of the year, or the budget—that term being years. There are now annual payments upon terminable confined to the estimate of expenditure at first submitted annuities to the extent of about 4,000,0001. Now, the an to the house in committee of supply, and to the estimate nual charge of these annuities, if they were made perpe of ways and means provided to meet that expenditure— tun!, would be 900,0001. The difference, therefore, in the having been placed before the house, the right hon gen- three years between the charge upon those terminable an- Neman can scarcely make any objection to that budget, nuities and upon them if converted into perpetual ennui and I may regard myself as fortunate in having escaped ties would be 9,300,0001., which represents with tolerable almost entirely from his censure. (Hear, hear.) But in accuracy the annual extinction of the debt. And, therefore, the excursive flights which the right hon. gentleman took if in those three years the whole of the debt represented in over the regions of finance he was not satisfied with re- the retain which I hold in my hand were extinguished, marking upon the estimate of revenue and expenditure together with the payment of the terminable annuities, for the year, but he commented upon the plan which I wo should redeem 18,550,0001. of the debt at the end of proposed of fixing the taxation for two additional years. those three years. I have explained to the house that I I may, perhaps, remind the house of the constitutional did not undertake to make a budget for the next two practice with regard to the determination of revenue and years, and that, according to any reasonable computation expenditure. The expenditure of the country is partly of expenditure, and also making allowance for those legi fixed by Act of Parliament—that is, it partly consists of timate arrangements which may be resorted to with re the interest upon debt payable by Act of Parliament, and Bard to the redemption of the debt, if Parliament should of charges upon the Consolidated Fund fixed by Act of so determine, there can be no ground, as far as we can Parliament; and it partly consists of annual votes in nom- judge , for anticipating that financial embarrassment mittee of supply. These two branches of expenditure are (involving a deficiency of 5,000,0001.) in a future year now about equal, the amount payable in the present year, which the right hon. gentleman has depicted in such alarm under Acts of Parliament, being about 32,00J,000/., and ing colours, and which he says would render the extinc the amount voted in committee of supply being also about tion of the income tax impossible. I have, I trust, shown 32,000,0001. It is possible, when the estimates are laid on that that part of the right hon. gentleman's speech which the table, when a plan of expenditure is proposed upon the consisted of a demolition of an imaginary fabric—viz., the responsibility of the executive Government to the house, balances in the next two years between revenue and expen to form a financial plan or scheme of revenue and expendi- diture upon which I had relied, together with an imaginary ture for the year, and that is what I and all persons in deficiency—is wholly founded on error and on a misappre my position have done. But I will venture to say that hension of the very elements and conditions of the question. no Finance Minister upon any occasion ever presented Can it be said with any truth that I have opposed any ad to the house a plan of expenditure for any future year. ditional or artificial obstacle to the extinction of the in (Hear, hear.) Such a thing is perfectly unheard of. come tax in 1860? I think I can convince the house that so The great majority of taxes are fixed by permanent far as I have done anything in that respect I have rather acts of Parliament and levied from year to year until afforded facilities for its extinction. I have merely proposed Parliament thinks fit to get rid of them, and other an addition to the incense tax for the present year, which taxes are fixed for a period of years. Formerly there were the right hon. gentleman himself not only does not object certain annual duties, such as the sugar duties, but they to, but of which he says we have a right to avail ourselves. have now been discontinued, and at present all taxes are I have proposed that the ins nue tax for the two next years fixed for a perpetuity or for a period of years by Act of shall be 7d. instead of sd. iu the pound, and I think that that Parliament. I thought it my duty to propose, finding is by no means a burdeLsome lucre lee. Au income tax of that the tea and sugar duties and the income tax were con- ld. in the pound would be Bs. 40. per cent., and therefore tinned for a certain time, that certain alterations should the addition of 21. in the pound to 50. will only add 16s. Bd. be made in the rates of those duties and of that tax. The per cent. to 21. is. Bd. per cent., thereby making the per income tax was limited to continue for three years, and I centage of 2/. 188. 4d. That addition, I think, cannot be proposed simply to alter the rates of the tax during those regarded as a very heavy burden upon any scale of fortune. three years. The tea and sugar duties were to fall by So f ar as th e change which I propose in the income-tax regular gradations to a certain amount, and were to be makes any difference, it provides an additional revenue fixed at that amount. All that I did was to propose cer- for those two years. And the same is the case with regard tale alterations in these duties, but /never submitted to to the tea and sugar duties. At present those duties are the house a plan of expenditure for a f u t ure ye ar —f or any upon a descending scale. I propose to arrest that descent, osad, therefore, so fur as those duties are concerned the y year beyond the present. (Hear, hear.) Neither on Fri day, when I first addressed the house on this subject, nor will tend to increase the revenue for the t eyears on Monday, when I gave an exp l ana ti on supplementary to The change which I propose, 80 far as the remission wonxt oithe my former address, did I attempt t o giv e any estimate of income tax is affected, manifestly facilitates and does not expenditure for a future year ; and if the right hon. gentle- obstruct. (Hear, •hear.) Then with re std to tp man will look to the statement of former Finance Ministers vision which may be made for the discharge of s he debt . —for instance, at th a t o f Sir R o b er t P ee l w h en h e intro- i n these three years, if that debt should be discharged duced the income tax, and at those of the various Chan- to the extent of 9,253,0004, the reduction of the into to of the Exchequer who have renewed that tax, be rest in 1860 compared with the year 1857 would be will find that on no occasion did they attempt to give an 313,000/. I may, perhaps, be liable to the c h arge o f at estimate of expenditure for more than one year. There- t emp ti ng t o penetrate toofar into the future if I read to fore, when the right hon. gentleman talks of a " defi. the house an estimate which I have prepared of the re ciency" he introduces an idea whollyforeign to the subject. venue in 1860-61. The revenue of a future year can be (Hear, hear.) In order that there should be a deficiency estimated 'according to the existing law • but it is other it is necessary that there should be a comparison between w i se w ith regar d to the expenditure, because it depends revenue and expenditure, and if I had made an estimate of upon the annual estimates which are prepared by the Go expenditure for future years, and had compared it with vernment of the time being, and have to be submitted to the revenue, and the right hon. gentleman had then found P ar li amen t . Wh en, therefore, I make an estimate of the there was adeficiency, he would no doubt have been justi- expenditure for 1858-9, for example, I can estimate that fled in saying that I had created, as he called it, a colossal port i on o f t h e expenditure, which isfixed by Parliament, deficiency ; but I never asserted that the changes of tax- such as the annual charge in respect of the consolidated ation I bad proposed would create either a deficiency or a fund • but all the rest of the estimates must necessarily be surplus. (Hear, hear.) On the first night that I made a framed upon mere conjecture. Supposing, then, that no statement I abstained from all mention whatever of future alteration shall be made till the year 1860 in the taxation years, but on Monday, when the right hon. gentleman which I have proposed, I estimate the revenue of the year had :given notice of the motion he has Low made, 1859.60 at 62,255,e00/. There would be a loss in 1860 I thought it would be convenient to the house to know upon the tea and sugar duties (even taking into calcula what was the revenue which I calculated for the two years turn the incg eased consumption in that year) of about to which that motion referred, and I accordingly read an 1,065,0004 Theie would also be a loss upon the income estimate of that revenue. The totals of that estimate were tax of 3,650,0041., because the payment of half of the se not stated by the right hon. gentleman exactly as I stated venpenny tax would fall due in the following year. In re them. The totals which I stated were 62,300,000/. for the spec' of miscellaneous I estimate a loss of 100,0004 The year 1858-9, and 62,265,000/. for the year 1859-60, and I total loss, therefore, to the revenue in 1860.1, compared said that if you compared that revenue with the expendi- with that of the previous year, would be 4,815,000/., and tare of the year 1853-4 you would find no deficiency. That the revenue in 1860-1 would be 57,450,0004. If wo may was the statement I made, taking the last year before the add for improvements and other branches of the public re war as a standard of comparison, because, if I had taken as venue an assumed sum of 665,000/. we get a total of my standard the estimated expenditure of the present year 1 55,115,000/. TLe expenditure of 1833-1 was 55,840,0001., I should have taken an estimate whicb has not been agreed I which we may tak e aI P as a standard of co ariso n, approvi ng to by the house, and which, moreover, relates to a year of it or not as we think fit. I dedaa from that sum the diffe great peculiarity—the first year after the war. However , rence between the interest o f t he debt i n 1861 and th e in. any himself , r hon. gentleman may wake the comparison for , terest of the debt in 1853 —viz., I,6lo,ooa—which is either of the revenue, such as I have st ated it, with the formed by deducting from the terminable a nnu iti es, w hi ch expenditure of the present year, or of that revenu e with expire in 1861, and which amount to 2,146,600/ ., t h e ad the expenditure of 1853; but, whatever year may be taken ditional charge of interest which has accrued during the as the standard of comparison , I must be understood a s d e- war. The expenditure of the year —assuming always I h l s s t ,oo i J t /. is clining to make any positive estimate, or to give an opinion that of 1853—is thus reduced to 5 1,500,000 L, as as to the amount of expenditure of any year after the pr.:- T w h o e rth h . ouse l have may a ta g k a o his t t ha a t u e i s a tra e te o f f or sB w , sent. With regard to the argument of the right to m .. gentleman that there will be a great sum, willwhich expressed no opinion upon it, and refer to it merely for the mnlate, to be defrayed in the year 1&,0, by which the a dif- purpose of showing thatthe plan I proposed does not throw ficulties of repealing the income tax will be increaseadr,k:. any obstacle in the way of the extinction of the income tax wish to cell the attention of the house to a fe a wre budget m for in 1.860. With regard to that question I feel myself ince- A t the same time I do not undertake to make pable of assenting to the latter part of the resolution before more than one year. I express no opinionwhateve n r t afito the house. It says that it would be expedient to " pro the probable expenditure for a year after the to pr t ese Ne- vide for such a balance of revenue and charge respectively vertheless, I shall take a general view, so as throw some in the year 1860 as may place it in the power of Parliament light on the possible financial position of the country int e at that period, without embarrassment to the finances, alto two following years. The revenue estimated for the years 1858-59 and 1859.60 is, as I have already stated, about gather to remit the income tax." I do not in the least deny that it would be extremely desirable to realise that 62,300,000/. I holdin my hand a statement of the gross re deny All persons must wish that anyonerous tax, which venue of everyyear since 1830. There is only one year from result.tree income tax is alleged to be, should, by the increasing 1830 up to 1853 in which the income exceeds 58,000,000/. The of the country, be found unnecessary for the revenue which I have provided resulting from the alterations Pr osper ity ublieservice. But it seems to me that we cannot bind of taxation will be at the lowest 62,265,0001., being nearly ourselves P down to any sort of pledge, or to any formal con. 4,000,000/. greater than that of every year prior to 1854-5. fession of faith as to the possibility or probability of Par- Since 1854 the revenue has been 64,000,000/. for 1854-5, any measure which liament being able to remit the income tax in 1860. (I ro n . doistaleul t o r and 70,000,000/. for 1855-6. In the present year the re- cal cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) E ach gen venue will amount to about 71,885,000/. The revenue for tleman may calculate the probabilities for himself, and if next year is estimated at 66,365,000/ e being the year 1857- 8, for which I propose the present budget. Then we come we choose we can abstain from taking might render such remission of taxation either aasonable pros to the years 1858-9, when the revenue is estimated at improbable. What I maintain is, that the pro I have made, so far from increasing the ditficplt'a which hold out 62,300,000/., and 1859-G0 at 62,265,000/. The question is whether a probable income of that amount will be insuffi cient for the expenditure of those two years. Notwithi s g p a ec to t s a w n h d io le h ss w e e ns oa t o lie h m ol , satisfactory o a ff t er p e re e s v e e a r t y orie 4 lee. miti standing the disapprobation of the right hon. gentleman financial adjustment in 1860. Beyond that ' must again be allowed to institute a comparison with s was""e to me impossible to go, If the state of point it appears expenditure of the year 1853-4. The expenditure. tnen.- 1860 should admit with advantage 0: our finances in in each or 55,840,000?. The revenue proposed to be raised with or almost entirely, of th e income the remission, wholly these years is 6,460,000?. in excess compared7ho s o n mesof the years wisdom and patriotism of taxParliameni ' let us trust to the that expenditure--that is to say, ee th "th n the expenditure of the change. (Hear, hear.) If, in that year to effect 1858-9 and 1859-60, as aampared oo7/. We must consider , turn out, from adverse circumstances onthe other hand, it should 1853 4, shows a surplus of 6,46 . 0, without the gift of prophecy _ which we cannot what may be regarded in a Parliamentary point of view, I willat the income tax is ecy foresee, that the abolition of that income. as the first charges on pointment and of our national defences, that, looking at the importance and weaken the respect in which the Parlia ment is happil ' the expenseswill be the first for the army navy . y held if we led the country by an abstract resolution to Comparingthe estimates of the present year with expect a remission which circumstances might charges. the estimates of the last year before the war, there is an ex- put beyond our power to grant. (Hear.) Therefore, al ess e of 4,000, 030 /. We certainl y cannot reaso nably anti- thou gh there is little in th e genera l t en our of the resole cipate that excess ahould continue at its present amount. tion to which I have to object, I cannot see that any_ advan- Some portion everybody will admit is due to its being the tage would arise from our assenting to it. It w nld be open first year after a war. [Mr. Disraeli—The second year ; to much misrepresentation, would give rise , perhaps, to I shall vote in that is important.] It is the first year after the disband- dangerous misunderstanding and therefore *, the chair. I shall neither lug of our armies, and after the return of our army from favour of the Speaker leaving foreign parts. Unquestionably great difficulty is experienced affirm nor deny the resolution, but shall ask the house 1 into Committeeof Ways o in making reductions suddenly in the army and pass to the order of the day and go navy, and th t.' 1 • to consider e prac ica question in military and naval establishments , and ,we must consider and Means, with a v ie ra . to of the income tax. can Hear. ) that a large portion—l will not say how large, but a lay e of the reduction of te d to no practical result. It portion—of the present excess is due to the peculiar ' g The resolution can I that of a certain qu thy • pre stances of the present year. What reduction circum- _, _ effect b e y o nd an of discus we may be able duce DO .h .....-03ear, hear, and a laugh) —au if to make in future years is a matter on which I si°n in this "°— ourselves down to this sort of d even express no opinion. It will depend on man can now we were t o ble u d nders del-stand how we should be nearer politioal many of which no doubt are within thecontrol caus than test, I cannot attainment of the end which the right h 119 1" of this . house, but inasmuch as we have notyet are now to to and allofus t hin ."14 been into Commit gentleman opposi tee of , Supply, and the estimates d satisfactory viz., have not yet undergone the perman ent an settlement of our finance*. any debate, it would be premature to offer an opinion as to much for the latter (Hear.) So the extent to which they may be susceptible of reduction former part seems to me, so far as I can apprehend its in future ye ars . Th at they will admit of reduction to a meaning, to h e equally objectionable. It asks the house to greater or less extent I deem absolutely certain. (Hear, resolve that "it would be expedient, before sanctioning hear.) We then come to the estimate for the Civil Service, the financial arrangements for the ensuing year, to adjust and I confess that offers greater difficulty in reduction thant the estimated income andexpenditurein the manner which the army and the navy. This has been owing to the g r r n i shall appear best calculated to secure the country aga increase which has taken place of late years in that obrtivii the risk of a deficieney in the years 1858-9 and 1859.6 0,' 0,'s of expendit ure , so th a t n o w the estimates for t tt at l-: , to I confom I ant not quite clear as to the meaning of that pa. Service amount to rather more than 7, 000 6)/ , 74 in the ragraph, by which I apprehend the right hon. gentle at 1 t• - Bay, they exhaust the whole of the inco me tax means—and perinTs Jae will /We the ki man n c loele to oorreo •'a ..""