The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 15, 1852.

and it was not denied that direct taxation must be had
recourse to, in order to make up the deficiency of indi-
rect taxation ; and the only question, therefore, was
the extent to which direct taxation should be
increased, and the proportion which it should bear
to the whole taxation of the country. There were but
two modes in which the large amount of the revenue of
the country could be raised—by direct taxation affect-
ing the largest possible portion of the community, and
affecting them as equitably as possible, and by raising a
large amount of taxation upon those articles which en-
tered into the most general consumption of the people.
The principle of free trade would not admit the Govern-
ment to levy a large amount of the revenue upon those
articles which entered into the general consumption of
the people. Parliament had taken as its proposition,
that the food of the people and the necessaries of life
should be as cheap as possible. Having laid down this
proposition, the alternative was clear, viz., that they
must raise the required amount of revenue by the other
system of taxation to which he had referred. Upon
these principles he would defy any of the noble lords to
vindicate the imposition of duties' upon malt and tea
amounting in the one case to 100, and in the other to 200
per cent. Her Majesty's Government were then driven
to this course by the adoption of the principles forced
upon them by the other side. The Government, acting
frankly and honestly upon those princinlc-3, had felt it to
be their duty to take the course of reducing the amount
of duty charged upon necessary articles of consumption
in this kingdom. With respect to the effects of the
repeal of the malt tax, be recollected that very high
authorities had declared on past occasions, that
after the final repeal of the corn laws it would be
impossible, if not unjust, to maintain the existing
amount of duty upon malt. Sir J. Graham also
intimated very strongly his opinion that the repeal
of the corn laws and of the malt duty must be the
necessary concomitants of each other, and that they could
not, in justice, repeal the one without repealing the other.
To repeal the whole of the malt duty was an act which,
with due regard to the finances of the country, her Ma-
jesty's Government would not think wise or just. Act-
ing, however, in conformity with the views which the
country has sanctioned, the Government had considered
,that a partial repeal of the duty on malt would be just
and expedient, or, if the phrase was better liked, "wise,
just, and beneficial." It had also been objected that the
Government were continuing in its most odious shape
the income tax. So far from that being the case, if
there was one measure more clearly laid down than ano-
ther by the committee appointed last year in respect of
the income tax, it was that there was a plain and palpable
distinction to be drawn between temporary and precarious
incomes. To the middle classes also material relief was
offered by the reduction of the tax upon incomes of a
temporary character When the late Government were
in office, it became a question whether the window tax
should be repealed, and it was deeided that it should, upon
the ground' of its injurious effect on the sanitary condition
of the country. At that time the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer was desirous of imposing a house tax which
would have been equivalent in its amount to the window
tax, and exceeding by 200,000/. the amount of the tax
which it was now intended to propose. But with regard
to the house tax, he was at a loss to understand on
what principle of justice it was possible to stop short at
houses of the value of 201. a year, thereby leaving the vast
majority of the houses of this country wholly free from
taxation, the occupiers of a great number of which were
at present exercising the privilege of the elective fran-
chise, which, according to the principles of the Liberal
party, ought to be coterminous and coexistent with the
payment of taxes. But there was one other point in his
noble friend's speech to which he must refer—namely,
with regard to the maintenance. of the public credit. If
he (the Earl of Derby) thought there was any one thing
in that measure calculated to shake the public credit or
to interfere in any degree with the good faith of the
country, their lordships might depend upon it that his
noble friend would not more warmly oppose that measure
than he would. But he saw no symptoms of any such
apprehensions for the good faith of the country. At no
period of time were the funds of this country in a higher,
more prosperous, or a more steady condition than they
were at the present moment, and his noble friend was
compelled to have recourse to some such excuse for the
state of the funds as that if they were not high now they
ought not to have been high. (Hear, hear.) Now,
really his noble friend need not have had recourse to the
old stale joke of Sidney Smith's, " that the three per
cents. were the greatest fools in the world," for, without
stopping to discuss the question whether the funds were
or were not a tolerable barometer of the public confidence
or the want of confidence, he might remind his noble
friend that he had not heard, in any expression of the
public feeling on the part of the monied and commercial
interests of this country, the slightest apprehension ex-
pressed with regard to the consequences of the measures
proposed by her Majesty's Government, nor did he find
any ground for such apprehension in the state of the funds
themselves. He should like to know why the funds did
not fall under the apprehension that the Government
would introduce those hyper-dangerous measures referred
to by his noble friend ? He wanted to know why it was
that under the pressure of those apprehensions the funds
did not go down ; why it was that the funds, which when
the present Government came into office were about 96,
had been steadily and gradually creeping up from a few
months after that event, and were now for the first time
up to 100 ; and why it was that from that time to this,
notwithstanding all the apprehensions of his noble friend,
they had never been below 100 ? (Hear, hear.) He
thought that was a tolerably fair indication, making full
allowance for all other circumstances tending to keep
down the interest of money, of the public confidence ;
and he ventured still to think it was clear, from the state
of the funds, and from the absence of anything like an
expression f hostile feeling on the part of the great com-
mercial classes, that there was no apprehension of any
failure of the public credit in consequence of the measures
of the present Government. He ventured also to ex-
press his belief that the funds would be much more likely
to fall from an apprehension of the consequences arising
from an unsettlement of the present state of things, and
from the dissolution of the present Government, than
they would be by carrying—what he hoped to carry—
into effect, not without modifications in the details, but
in substance and as a whole, those propositions which had
been submitted to the other house of Parliament by his
right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
which he trusted would in due time come under the
consideration of their lordships'.house.
Lord MONTEAGLE made some explanations across
the table.

The Earl of DERBY said he supposed his noble friend's
motion was not to mind the justice of a tax, but to take
it where he could get it. He must protest against such
a mode of levying taxes. He would also state that he
never said that free-trade necessarily contemplated the
absence of all imposts. What he did say was that free
trade contemplated the absence of disproportionate im-
port duties, more especially on articles of general con-
sumption. He knew not what his noble friend's views
might be of proportion or disproportion, but he (the Earl
of Derby) could not help thinking that 2001. or 2501. per
cent. upon articles of general consumption, fell within
the definition of disproportion. (Hear, hear.) Nor did
he think that the class on whom, partially at all events,
one of those heavy taxes fell—the producer, sharing to a
great extent with the consumer—had a right to be
termed a privileged class.
Lord LYNDHURST (addressing Lord Monteagle
from the woolsack)—Does the noble lord really wish
these returns (A laugh.)
Lord MONTEAGLE.repIied in the affirmative, and
The motion was agreed to.
PUBLIC WORKS.

Earl POWIS moved for a retura of the amount lent
in each year since 1830 by the Pablic Works Loan Com-
missioners to England, Scotland, and Ireland ; return of
the several loans now outstanding in each kingdom : 1.
On security of county rates ; 2. Railroads ; 3. Roads,
canals, docks, and harbours ; 4. Other works and build-
ings ; and of the years in which each of such loans will
be paid off, together with the rate of interest now paid
on each loan. The noble earl also asked whether it was
the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to provide for
the ratepayers in counties, any facilities for borrowing
money for bridges, shire halls, gaols, asylums, &c., cor-
responding to those which they have hitherto enjoyed
under the Public Works Loan Commission ?

The Earl of DERBY said there could be no objection
to grant the rcturns moved for by his noble friend ; but
he found since: his noble friend had given notice of his
motion, that 'there was a return made to the House of
Commons on. the Bth of July, 1851, which would give
up to that period the whole information which his noble
friend asked, for ; and probably there might be some
little variation of the terms of his noble friend's motion,
so as to include the return made to the House of Com-
mons—a course which would probably suit the public
convenience, and at the same time effect the object which
his noble friend had in view. With regard to the ques-
tion which this noble friend had put, he imagined that his
noble friend: adverted to the declared intention, on the
is
sue
of of the 'Government to suspend the continuous
of a sum amounting to 400, 000/. or 500, 000/. a year, under
the management of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners.
It was the opinion of the Government that in the present
state of the Money Market it was not desirable that the sys-
tem shouldbe continued which was introduced under very
different circumstances, and at a very different time, for the
purpose of meeting a great public distress, and of facili-
tating the 1 ending of capital by private persons. With
respect to the reluctance of private money lenders to
advance money which would be paid by temporary in-
stalments, and the consequent inconvenience not only
with regard to public works, but various others, such as
land drainage, the Government had reason to believe
that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had gone to as
great an ex teut as they thought it prudent to do in lend-
ing money on that particular security ; but the Govern-
ment had voider their consideration a mode by which they
might to a certain extent intervene between the borrower
and the lender, without introducing any actual advance
from the public Treasury, for the purpose of relieving
the difficul ties now experienced by those parties.
The motion, as amended on the suggestion of the Earl
of DERBY, was then agreed to ; and the house ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PETITIONS.

Mr. SCLIOLEFIELD presented a petition praying
the house to interfere in the case of Edward Murray.
Several petitions were presented praying the house to
grant papert3 to literary and scientific institutions.
Several petitions were presented praying for the re-
peal of the -taxes on knowledge.
Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from Exeter,
against the 'Budget.
Mr. LOCKE presented a similar petition from llo-
niton.

Mr. HE TWOOMpresented a petition from the gra-
duates of the University of London, praying the house
to confer ( )ne of the vacant seats on that institution.
Sir J. Z T, SHELLEY presented a petition from the

teetollers of Westminster, against the reduction of the
malt and hop taxes, and also against the proposed in-
crease of the house tax.

Several other hon. members presented petitions with a
similar prayer.
Mr. PIGOTT presented a petition from the beard of
guardians of Reading union, against the recent poor-law
order.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS presented similar petitions from
St. Mary, Newington, and the Borough of Lambeth.
Mr. WILKINSON presented a similar petition from
the parish of St. Mary, Lambeth.
Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from Canter-
bury in New Zealand against the measure for charging
the debt of the New Zealand Company upon that
Colony.
Mr. OAKESi presented a petition from Bury St.
Edmunds against the Budget.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Bir-
mingham praying for the repeal of the Newspaper
Stamp duty.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Stoke-upon-
Trent praying for the repeal of the Newspaper Stamp duty.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from Carlisle
against the Budget.
HEALTH OF TOWNS. •

Sir J. GRAHAM said as the Health of Towns' Bill
now stood the local authorities had no power to prevent
interments in towns, or to provided cemeteries outside the
town. Now, he wished to know if it was the intention
of Government to bring in any bill after the recess that
would remedy the defect.

Lord JOAN MANNERS said the attention of the
Government had been called to this subject, and a bill
would be brought forward after the recess.

THE CAFFRE WAR.

Mr. ADDERLEY wished to ask the right hon.
gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, if he were pre-
pared to put the house in possession of any information
he might have received by the Queen of the South, on
the subject of the Caffre war. He wished to know if it
was true that the war was extending itself in the north-
east of the colony, and whether the right hon. gentle-
man
had received any memorial from the colonists, com-
plaining of the postponement of their constitution.
Sir J. PAKINGTON had hardly had time to look
carefully through the disptches, but he had read enough
to satisfy him that the Caffre war could not be con-
sidered as terminated yet, though from one despatch of
Gen. Cathcart he collected that the Waterkloof had been
entirely cleared of Caffres, and there was no prospect of
its again falling into the possession of the enemy. Hos-
tilities are even still going on in the Amatolas, but the
enemy there was confined to a very small number, while
with regard to the other part of the question he had no
reason to suppose that the war was extending itself in a
north-easterly direction. With regard to the latter
question of the hon. gentleman, he begged to state that
he had received a resolution, but no memorial on the sub-
ject. A deputation, however, from the lieutenant-
governor led him to believe that no excitement pre-
vailed in the Cape, as to the intentions of the govern-
ment, and it was anticipated that there would be no
difficulty in carrying them out.
In reply to a question from Mr. VERNON SMITH,

Sir J. PAKINGTON said, the papers which had been
moved for on the subject of the constitution were in
preparation and would be laid upon the table forthwith.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to know if the
boundary question was yet settled, and if it was, whether
government would have any objection to lay the corres-
pondence upon the table.
' Sir J. PAKINGTON said that was still an open
question, and he was corresponding with General Cath-
cart upon the subject.
Mr. HINDLEY wished to ask the Secretary for the
Colonies, if the statements which had appeared in the
Cape newspapers are true, viz., that Kafirs taken in the
clearing of the Waterkloof were immediately hung ; and
if so, whether this was justified by the laws of war.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had no official
knowledge of the subject, but with regard to the latter
part of the hon. member's question, he apprehended
that when an enemy showed no quarter it was considered
justifiable to treat him in a similar spirit. On the other
hand, however, if the rules of war were followed out on
both sides, it would be against military practice to exe-
cute a prisoner, but it should be recollected that in this
case a considerable portion of the Kafirs and Hot-
tentots, who were contending against British
arms, were British subjects, and, therefore, were
liable to be dealt with as rebels against the Crown
of England. He had heard from a private source, that
in clearing the Waterkloof lit had been found necessary
to hang two persons, but nothing in the shape of un-
necessary cruelty had been resorted to. (Hear.)
Mr. HINDLEY wished to know if the right hon.
baronet would make inquiry into the subject.
Sir J. PAKINGTON had no objection to make in-
quiry, but he might state that he had received one of
the general orders of the Governor, in which the officers
and men were enjoined to allow no unnecessary loss of
life. Looking at the nature of the enemy which General
Cathcart had to contend against, it was evident that they
must have confidence in his honour and integrity, or the
war would never be brought to a close. (Hear, hear.)

was obliged to take an opposite view to that of the right
hon. gentleman the member for the University
of Oxford, in whose general policy he had

hitherto concurred. (Hear.) He confessed that he
came to this conclusion in a spirit altogether different
to that exhibited by those, around him. He had been
returned to assist in maintaining that fiscal policy which

had so improved the condition of all classes, and it was
with no small degree of vexation that he found the Go-
vernment had made no attempt in their budget to reverse
their policy, which they seemed to him to have fairly and
loyally accepted. (Hear, hear.) There was nothing,
in his opinion, so injurious as a Government on suffe-
rance. Of that they had experience during the last three
years of Lord J. Russell's administration, but he could
not believe that the present Gevernment were actuated
by any great desire to continue in office. ("Hear," from
the Ministerial benches.) As a memberof a shipping com-
munity, he tendered his thanks to them for the care

and attention which they had bestowed to the wants of
the shipping interest. The hon. member for Halifax
(Sir C. Wood) had said that the measures in-

irocluced by the Government to relieve the shipping
trade, were prepared by their predecessors. Now, if
that were so, they were greatly to blame for not having
the courage to bring them forward ; but as the present
Government had taken them in hand, they were en-
titled to the thanks of all the community for the credit
belonging to the adoption of such a course. As to the
income tax he thought that its principle ought to be at
once reconsidered, and that the proposed alterations of
the Ministry were in the right direction. (Hear.)
He considered that it was unjust to levy the same
rate of tax upon precarious as on permanent
incomes. (Hear.) The noble lord then referred to the

various propositions in the budget, and said, as he be-
lieved it would be generally advantageous to the com-
munity, he would, without pledging himself to all the
details, give the resolution before the committee his
support, thereby affirming that direct taxation ought to
be adjusted, and the system of reducing duties on articles
of consumption continued. (Cheers.)
Mr. OSBORNE said, that so far from having any
wish to review the financial scheme of the Government

in a captious spirit, he was willing to give credit to the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
for two main points in his budget. He felt that he was
entitled to credit, in the first place, for the relief he had.
afforded to the shipping interest. He lamented, indeed,
that he had not gone further, and taken the duty off
timber ; but at any rate he thanked the right hon. gen-
tleman for' what he had done in that line. (Hear,
hear.) He thought likewise that the right hon. gentle-

man had taken a sagacious and statesmanlike view with

respect to the tea duties. He was not disposed to quar-
rel and split straws with him because the reduction was

to be effected in six years, instead of a less time, as pro-
posed by the hon. member for Glasgow, but he would
at once say that he thought the right hon. gentleman
deserved credit for these two improvements. (Hear,
hear.) He was even disposed to go further, and say
that the statement of the right hon. gentleman in bring-
ing forward the budget was as clear a statement as had

ever been put before the house. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Osborne) knew no man in that house who combined the
two antoganistic qualities of lucidity and obscurity so
much as the right hon. gentleman—(laughter)—but he
was bound to admit that in placing his 'financial state-
ment before the house, he had done so without any re-
serve or mystification, and that there could be no mistake
on either side of the house as to what they were about
to vote for in the present budget. Having made these
admissions, he trusted he might be allowed to look at
the budget as a whole. And if it was true, as the hon.
member for Taunton (Mr. Mills) stated on the previous
night, that there was universal disappointment through-
out the country at the contents of the budget, he would
take the liberty of asking what that disappointment had
arisen from ? Was it not from the magnificent promises
which were held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
(Hear.) The promises of the right hon. gentleman were
so magnificent that the people in the country actually
thought he had obtained possession by some means of
the philosopher's stone—that a fiscal millennium was
about to ensue—that the time was coming when tax-
gathering would cease, and when the consolidated fund
would be converted into a refuge for distressed agricul-
turists. (Laughter.) What was it that "loomed in the
distance "in the month of June last ? If he understood
the promise which was held out by the right hon. gen-
tleman in his address to his constituents, as advertised
in The Times of June last, and again in his speech at
Aylesbury, as reported in the same paper, it was just
this,—that in his forthcoming budget he undertook no

less a task than the total revision of the taxation of the
country not a mere shifting of taxation from the
shoulders of one class to another. (Hear, hear.) In
his address to his constituents, dated June 2, 1852
and he begged the house to remark that that was not a
common address, merely soliciting the votes of the
electors, but an address in which he propounded a policy
conveyed in beautiful language and most indistinct terms
—(laughter)—in that address the riglA hon. gentleman
said :

" One of the soundest means, among others (to diminish
the cost of production), is a revision of our taxation :
juster notions of taxation are more prevalent than here-
tofore ; the possibility of greatly relieving the burdens of
the community by both adjustment and reduction seems
to loom in the future."

Well, what had happened in December ? Had they had
a revision of taxation ? (Hear, hear.) No. All that
they had was an'. ingenious attempt to tranfer a large
portion of 2,500,0001., which was now raised through
the means of an Excise duty, to the shoulders of a class
who were not supposed to be very favourable to the
Government. (Hear.) And he begged the house to
remark, that while the remission of taxation was left to
"loom in the future," the increase was to be sudden and
immediate. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the Budget
would at all conduce to reconcile conflicting interests, as
the noble lord the member for King's Lynn seemed to
suppose. The noble lord, he observed, had succeeded in
catching the jargon of the other side of the house. It
was merely " the area of taxation that was to be in-
creased" by the present Budget, they were told—which,
to '8) mind, looked very much as if a
c his (Mr. Obo
portiosnorfntehe
Budget were about to be with-
drawn. (Hear, hear.) The Budget seemed to him as if
it had been conceived in a hostile, if not a revengeful
spirit, against the middle classes. (Cries of "Oh !"
from tir sayste in
rialists .) What did the Chancellor of
the Etxhce Exchequer
that singularly lucid and clear
speech of his ? He said, that "the ten-pounders were
revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the re-
peal of the corn laws."
These words conveyed some-
thing very distinct to his mind, and convinced him that
the right hon. gentleman had framed his Budget, not as
a healing measure to reconcile conflicting interests, but
as a scourge "to the backs of those who were "revelling
in the relief which they enjoyed from the repeal of the corn
laws." With respect to the question of direct or in-
direct taxation, he begged to say that he had never been
one of those who had theorised much on that subject.
In his opinion direct taxation might do very well in a
new country, but in an old country like ours, with a
large debt, and a purely artificial system, he thought we
ought to proceed with great caution in laying on direct
taxation. He now came to the speech of the Home
Secretary last night, and he must say that he thought
the criticism of that right hon. gentleman upon the
observations of the right hon. baronet the member for
Halifax (Sir C. Wood) was most extraordinary. The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole), alluding to the
house tax, said that the right hon. member for Halifax
had imposed a most unjust tax upon houses ' • and what
was the remedy proposed by the Home Secretary ?
Why, he thought the tax so unjust that he proposed to
double it at once. (Laughter, and cheers from the Op-
' position.) [Mr. Walpole was understood to say that he
had described the tax as unequal.] Well (continued
Mr. Osborne), but how did the right hon. gentleman
render it more equal ? The Government adopted an
arbitrary line, and proposed to extend the tax to 101.
houses, but, if the tax was just in principle, why did
they stop at 101. houses ? (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Osborne) was not one of those who were particularly
enamoured of the house tax. He doubted the justice
o that tax, and he thought the honourable member
for the West Riding had succeeded last night in making
out a very strong case against it ; but he asked the
Home Secretary, if the house tax was unequal under
the dynasty of the right hon. member for Halifax, how
he (Mr. Walpole) made it more equal by extending
it to 10/. houses ? Why were such large numbers of
cottages in the country to be excluded from the opera-
tion of this extended tax, which would tell almost
exclusively upon the towns ? He contended that if
this tax was just in principle the Government were
bound to apply it equally to town and country. (Cheers.)
What was sauce for your town goose was equally sauce
for your rural gander—(loud laughter)—and it was not
by cutting the feathers of the one bird that any com-
pensation could be given to the other. (A laugh.) Let
the house mark that " compensation" was the term, and
he was prepared to argue that this plan of laying on the
house tax was nothing more than compensation to the
agricultural inter
• est, (Some cries of " No," and "Oh!"
from the Ministerial benches, met by cheers from the
Opposition.) Now he would, with their permission, in-
form them what were the opinions of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, expressed in the months of March and July
last, as to his plans for the compensation of the landed
interest. It was a very curious thing that the right
hon. gentlemen had fixed upon the exact amount of
compensation which he was ready to give. The right
hon. gentleman said :
" It is quite clear, by your system of local taxation, la- d
is subject to 2,500,0001. more than any other property in
the Country." Now this was the exact half of the malt
tax which the right hon. gentleman proposed to take off.
" If Parliament will not, in the manner I recommend"—
namely, by countervailing duties, which were now given
up, "do justice to the agricultural interest, they must
submit to a revision of the taxation of the country, and
they may depend upon it the redress which their own
sense of justice will ultimately prompt them to accord to
the agricultural interest will be obtained in a manner fax
more coarsely, and by moans much more expensive." . .
"The policy of her Majesty's Ministers is to do justice to
the land ; to bring in measures of redress for all those
great producing interests which are now suffering injusticf, ;
if the country will not have recourse to these remedial
measures we bow to their decision ; but, though we may
not be Ministers, still, as members of Parliament, we will
labour for other measures of redress ; we will, though in
opposition"—in which situation he (Mr. Osborne) hoped
soon to see them—(laughter)—" exert ourselves to obtain
those countervailing and compensatory regulations which
justice demands."

That was in the month of March ; but, at a dinner of
his constituents at Newport Pagne], on the 14th of July
the right hon. gentleman said :
" It is in reviewing the system of taxation, in the re-ad-
justment of that system, that the cultivators of the soil

find that compensation which they have a right to expect
from the abrogation of the corn laws."
- - -

That was the opinion expressed in the month of July
last by the right hon. gentleman at the head of the go-
vernment. (Some laughter from the Ministerial side.)
Well, the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) was at the head of the Government.
(" Hear," and some cheering from the Opposition.)
There was no doubt of that, and he was glad to see the
right hon. gentleman, on account of his abilities and
talents, in such a position- (Hear, hear.) But what did
a right hon. gentlemen say who was at the tail of the
Government? (Laughter.) He would inform the house
what were the opinions of that right hon. gentleman,
which were so far valuable, because he was almost the
last of the Romans—the last of the Protectionists.

(" Hear," and a laugh.) Whenever the right hon.
gentleman wrote a letter he (➢Sr. Osborne) was always
delighted to see it. (Laughter.) It was true that a

great many letters had been forged in the right hon. gen-
tleman's name, but in order to secure correct copies, he
(Mr. Osborne) did—what he recommended every hon.
_ _

Member to do—he took in the Stamford Meivury—
(great laughter)—a most excellent paper—(a laugh)—
and, having the advantage of being the right hon. gen-
tleman's organ, no fictitious letters were printed in it.
(Renewed laughter.). Well,
_what did the right hon.

gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
say ? He (Mr. Osborne) was going to read them. Mr.
Christopher's very last—(laughter)—his very last letter to
the electors of Lindsey, is which he expressed his opinions

upon the present budget. The right hon. gentleman,
writing to the poor deluded Lincolnshire farmers, said,—

" The Government have presented a financial scheme,
which, although there is only a surplus revenue of
1,300,0001., will relieve the agricultural interest of a vexa-
tious impost to the amount of 2,500,0001."

(Laughter.) Well, the right hon. gentleman did not
seem particular to a shade or two. (A laugh.) He did
not tell those to whom he wrote that in his way of stat-

ing the question he was leaving a deficit of 1,200,000/.,
but he endeavoured to persuade the electors of Lincoln-
shire that the financial scheme of the Government

would, from a surplus revenue of 1,300,000/.,—the Go-
vernment, he (Mr. Osborne) supposed, being so gene-
rous as to make up the difference from their own sala-
ries—(a laugh)—enable them to remove a vexatious im-
post of 2,500,0001. Now, he (Mr. Osborne) asked any
gentleman whether, after hearing these statements of
the head and tail of the Government—(laughter)—com-
.

bining all shades of opinion, they could doubt that the
house tax was laid upon the middle classes as what the
right hon. gentleman called a compensatory regulation
for the suffering agricultural interest ? (Some cries of
" Oh !" from the Ministerial side, and cheers from the
Opposition.) He thought there could be no doubt that
this house tax was laid on for no other reason than to
compensate the agricultural classes for what they had
lost by the repeal of the corn laws. (Hear, hear.)
Now, they had heard a great deal about the malt tax,
and he must say that if the Exchequer was overflowing,
and other more oppressive taxes were taken off, he for
one would have no objection to vote for the repeal of
the malt tax, but at the same time he thought it was
one of those taxes which ought not to be removed,
unless the country was in a state of great prosperity,
and there was a real, and not a fictitious, surplus in the
Exchequer. The right hon. Secretary for the Home
Department, in dealing with this question last night, had
argued as if there was a great surplus in the Exchequer,
and he did not seem for a moment to consider that by
taking off the malt tax he was making a deficit.
The right hon. gentleman kept steadily out of the consi-
deration of the house the fact that in taking off the
malt tax he was making such a deficit that the Goiern-
ment were obliged to extend the house tax, and to lower
the income tax to 1001. of precarious income, and 50/.
fee simple. The right hon. gentleman had argued the
matter as if he was doing all this from an overflowing
Exchequer, instead of commencing by making a deficit.
He (Mr. Osborne) thought the right hon. Home Secre-
tary, when he was arguing as to the effect of repealing
the malt tax, and looked back for something like 100
years, quite forgot the altered habits and tastes of the
people of this country. He seemed completely to have
forgotten that the people of this country now consumed
upwards of 60,000,0001 b. of tea, and 40,000,0001 b. of
coffee, and that the taste for those beverages was un-
questionably extending. He (Mr. Osborne) would not
stop to argue this question upon sanitary grounds, for
he believed that to be purely nonsense. (Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) He believed it would be just as possible
to prove that there was a great increase of nervous dis-
orders in consequence of the use of tea, as to prove that
there was any harm in good wholesome beer.—such beer
as brewed by his excellent friend the member for Derby
(Mr. Bass). He (Mr. Osborne) believed beer to be a
good, wholesome, and national beverage ; and, there-
fore) he at once dismissed all sanitary considerations on
the subject. (A laugh.) He must deny, however, that
this proposed reduction of the malt tax was a consumer's
question. He denied that the price would be materially
affected so far as the artisan and mechanic were con-
cerned. (Hear, hear.) What had every gentleman who
was acquainted with the brewing trade, and who had
spoken during the debate, said on the subject ? The
hon. member for Derby, who, he thought, had sailed
rather near the wind with regard to protection, had
admitted last night, that although barley had been fall-
ing
sin price for many years, the brewer was the only
man who got the benefit. Indeed, that hon. gentleman
said in effect, "If you'll take off the whole malt
tax, we will give you something handsome ;" and
it seemed that this "something handsome," if one-half
the malt-tax was repealed, would be a farthing a quart
upon the price of beer ! ("Hear, hear;" and a laugh.)
But, if it did not benefit the artisan, how would this
partial remission of the malt-tax benefit the farmer ?
Now, he (Mr. Osborne) was himself a considerable bar-
ley-grower. He had taken some pains in considering
the subject, and he did not believe the proposed measure
could benefit the agricultural interest generally. What
portion of the agricultural interest was chiefly suffering
at this time ? Not the producers of barley. (Hear,
hear.) He knew that the barley-producers were never
better off than they were now. He had himself sold bar-
ley last week, and he never got a better price since he
had been farming. (Hear, hear.) But what was the
description of agricultural land, the occupiers of which
were now complaining ? The heavy clay lands, the
wheat lands. (Hear, hear.) Well, he might be told,
perhaps, that this land would be forced into the produc-
tion of barley ; but what sort of barley would they get
from such land? (Hear, hear.) Every one at all ac-
quainted with the subject knew that the inferior sorts of
barley had no sale with the brewers, but the brighter
kinds of barley, such as the best chevalier barley, were
what they bought. It was then absurd to suppose that
the partial remission of the malt tax could be of any be-
nefit to the farmer. Then something had been said
about the advantages which would be derived by the
farmer with regard to the fattening of cattle ; but the
opinion of all the practical men of science,—of Liebeg,
of Dr. Lyon Playfair, and of others, which were quoted
before Lord Monteagle's committee in 1846,—was, that
cattle might be fattened much better upon ground barley
than upon malt. He (Mr. Osborne) denied that this
partial remission of the malt tax would benefit either
the consumer, by lowering the price of beer materially,
or the agricultural interest as a whole, by allowing the
farmer to grow a high class of barley, or to fatten his
cattle to advantage. But he could adduce on this point
the evidence of a gentleman who had applied his mind
to these matters, and who was well qualified to form a
judgment on the subject. In the year 1851, when the
hon. member for Derby brought forward his motion for
a reduction of one half of the malt-tax, the hon. member
for 'North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) expressed
himself in the following terms :
" No man had voted more steadily than himself for the
total repeal of the malt tax ; but its partial remission
would neither diminish the expense of its collection nor
remove the restrictions which it imposed upon agriculture
or on brewing at home ; in short, it would afford none of
those indirect advantages which the agricultural sommun-
ity valued. He would rather support the partial reduc-
tion of a customs' duty than that of an excise, because a
reduction of the first would lead to a diminution in the
staff for collecting customs, while no such advantage could
be obtained by the partial repeal of an excise tax."
Now, if he (Mr. Osborne) were to speak for five hours
—if he were making a budget speech, and he did not
say so sneeringly, for he had listened with great delight
to the whole speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
—he could not adduce better reasons against the partial
remission of the malt tax. He therefore claimed the
vote of the hon. member for North Warwickshire on
this occasion. He had, however, a still higher autho-
rity against the partial repeal of the malt tax—that of
the late Sir R. Peel, who summed up most compendi-
ously the advantages and disadvantages of the tax in a
speech which he made in 1835. (Hear, hear.) In
that speech the right hon. baronet proved most con-
clusively that no tax was collected at so trifling a loss
to the revenue, and he showed that 5,100,0001. of
revenue was collected at an expense of only 150,0001.,
and warned the house in the most emphatic language
against tampering with that tax. He (Mr. Osborne)
found that whenever the house had made any changes in
the malt tax they had always come back to its reimpo-
sition. In 1816 one half of the malt tax was removed,
and in 1819 it was again imposed. In March, 1821,
the tax was repealed, and in the following April the vote
was rescinded. On a Friday in 1833, also, the malt tax
was repealed, and on the following Monday the resolu-
tion for its repeal was rescinded. He thought that if
the house adopted the proposal of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer they would enter upon a most mischievous
course, for they would remove a tax which was collected
at the least possible expense, which was onerous and
oppressive to no one, which would not relieve the agri-
cultural interest as a whole, and which would not
cheapen beer to any great extent. They would, in fact,
be repealing a tax in order to keep up a delusion that it
would benefit the agricultural interest, while, in fact, it
would only benefit the brewer and the publican. (Hear,
hear.) He must say he regretted that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer appeared to have forsaken all his former
schemes. He wished to know why the right hon. gen-
tleman had not moved for a committee of the house to
consider the peculiar burdens affecting land. (Hear, and
alaugh.) What had become of the right hon. gentleman's
schemes for the growth of tobacco in Ireland ? (Hear,
and a laugh.) What had become of the right hon. gentle-
man's proposal for placing the establishment charges of
the poor-rate on the consodated fund ? The right hon.
gentleman had given no reason the other night for not
having stood by his colours, and for not bringing forward
some motion to place the establishment charges on the
consolidated fund. He (Mr. Osborne) would not pro-
mise the right hon. gentleman his vote, but he would tell
him this, having some interest connected with land—that
he thought it would be a very fair subject of inquiry
whether there were any peculiar burdens affecting land,
in order that the question might be finally set at rest.
He thought the right hon. gentleman was bound, after
all his promises, to have held out to the agricultural
interest something more solid than this partial repeal
of the malt tax, which was, in fact, no concession to
the agricultural interest. lie (Mr. Osborne) entirely

dissented from the manner in which the income tax had

been treated by the Government. He regarded that tax
as most inquisitoria,l in its nature, and as extremely de-
moralizing to the people of this country. It was only
necessary to read the evidence of Mr. Pressly, and of the

other witnesses examined before the committee on

the income-tax, ,to be satisfied of its demoralising
tendency. He (Mr. Osborne) must; however, deny the
statement which had been made, that that tax had been
imposed in order to maintain free trade. He understood
—when the tax was brought forward by the late Sir R.
Peel—that it was proposed as a temporary expedient to
make up a deficit. (Cheers.) It was merely a temporary
expedient voted for three years—(hear, hear)—but Par-
liament had since gone on voting it for three years at a
time. It had been said that the public had become habi-
tuated to this tax, but, for his own part, he hoped the
public would not become habituated to it—(hear, hear)
—for he regarded it as a most odious tax, because it was
both inquisitorial and demoralising, The Government
were bound to state their views upon this subject, and
as to the length of time for which this income tax was to
be imposed ; for they had at other times given very
strong opinions upou it. Lord Derby said, on the
28th of February, 1851, in the other house, that " any
surplus revenue that might arise should, in the first in-
stance be applied towards a reduction and final extinc-
tion of the income tax ; " and that was followed up
in the House of Commons by a motion to that

effect, made by the President of the India Board
(Mr. Herries), whom he (Mr. Osborne) was sorry

not to have heard upon this Budget for the right
hon. gentleman was an able financier, and his studied
abstinence from assenting to anything in this budget was
remarkable—(hear, hear)—when he was appealed to,
there had been nothing but a grave shrUg and a very
suspicious silence.' (Hear.) He (Mr. Osborne) would
not go into the distinction attempted to be drawn be-
tween precarious and certain income ; he did not feel

qualified to give any_ opinion as to the justice or the

scientific accuracy of the discriminating duty proposed.
That question had puzzled many wise men. He remem-

tiered hearing the late Sir R. Peel say that if you deter-
mined to interfere in that way, you would have to do
away with the tax altogether—that you never could
make any approximation to a discrimination. He (Mr.
Osborne) wished to look further into the subject before
pronouncing upon that part of the scheme. (Hear.) He
would proceed now to advert to some very remarkable
opinions which he had heard uttered the other night by
the hon. member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton),
whom, however, he begged to assure, when venturing
upon any criticism of those opinions, that no one more
admired his literary talent—(hear, hear)—he read him
with delight by days and listened to him with pleasure
by night—(laughter and cheers)—he was a man who
must do honour to any assembly of which he was a mem-

ber. (Cheers.) But this must be said of that distin

guished member of Parliament and of the literary world,
that he gave somewhat original reasons for his change of
politics—a subject into which he (Mr. Osborne) should
not have thought of entering, but that the hon. baronet
had considered it necessary, to make a defence not only
for the Ministers, but for himself, when his conduct was
not impugned. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet said
he had always abided by the Liberal party till it was in
a state of exhaustion, and then he left it. For what ?
Because he differed with them on the principle of free
trade. And what did he do ? Why, he joined the
other party just as they had given up the principle for
opposition to which he had left his friends ! (Laughter
and cheers from the Opposition.) A singular reason for
so eminent a member of Parliament to give ! (Hear.)
Singular that he should have left the corpse of the noble
lord without consigning it to a decent funeral—(laughter
and cheers)—but more singular that he should have
left the noble lord upon a difference on the principle of
free trade, and joined the right hon. gentleman opposite
just as he had given up the principle for which the hon.
baronet forsook the noble lord! (Hear.) He hoped
the hon. member had not forgotten his speeches for the
ballot and triennialiParliaments. He hoped the air of
Herts had not had that enervating effect upon him that

he had forgotten his vigorous youth when representing
Lincoln. "Hear, hear," and a laugh.) But he
chiefly referred to the hon. baronet because he gave an
extraordinary opinion, for him the other night, in favour
of direct taxation. Probably one of his books, by which
he would live longest in the world, was that admirable
work upon the institutions of this country " England
and the English." (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Osborne)
would advise every new member immediately to get a
copy of that work—(laughter)—because there was a
chapter on the formation of a national party which, at
this particular epoch, was well worthy of study—(hear,
hear)—and in which he gave his opinion upon taxation ;
and here were his views on taxation. They were a little
curious, as compared with his present views. This was
in chapter 8. The book was published in 1840 :
" I have little faith in the virtue of any commutation of
taxes. I have studied the intricacies of our finance; I have
examined the financial systems of other countries ; and I
cannot discover any very large fiscal benefit as the probable
result of new combinations of taxation. House and win-
dow-taxes are less just than property tax."

(Cheers from the Opposition.) He then went on, in re
ference to direct taxation, of which he was now enamoured,

" An immense national debt renders direct taxation a
dangerous experiment."
(Hear, hear.) And here was a most extraordinary note ;
he (Mr. Osborne) believed it was only appended to the
fourth edition. [Sir E. B. Lytton.—" The book was
written twenty years ago."] This was published in
1840. [Sir E. B. Lytton—" 1833."] But had the hon.
member forsworn all his opinions of 20 years ago ?
Then he did not tell the whole secret the other night.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He (Mr. Osborne) thought
the hon. member quitted his party only for free trade.
(Hear.) But at any rate this note was worth listening
to, and was most instructive. This was revised by the
hon. gentleman ; it was the last edition he revised, and
here was the editor's note ; let county members listen
to this :
" I firmly believe that if the national debtor be ever in
danger, the fatal attack will come less from the Radicals
than the country gentlemen"—(loud cheers from the Oppo-
sition)—" who are jealous of the fundholder or crippled
with mortgages. The day after the repeal of half the malt
tax (leaving a large deficit in the revenue) was carried I
asked one of its principal supporters, a popular and inde-
pendent country gentleman"—he (Mr. Osborne) believed it
was Mr. Cayley—(laughter)—and he had nothing to say
against the account of him—(cheers)—" how he proposed
to repair the deficit ? 'By a tax of 2 per cont.,' quoth he,
' `upon Master Fundholder.' If that does not suffice,'
asked I, 'Why, then we must tax him 4 per cent.,' was the
honest rejoinder !"
The hon. member, transplanted from the h ealthy atmos-
phere of Lincoln to the rather sickening and enervating
soil of Hertfordshire, came down and said it was written
20 years ago. He (Mr. Osborne) supposed the hon.
member was now a convert to direct taxation, and very
probably he would go upon " Master Fundholder."
(Laughter and cheers from the Opposition.) In this de-
bate very little comparatively has been said upon the
Irish part of the question. (A laugh.) The Chancellor
of the Exchequer, in his address to the Buckinghamshire
constituency, eloquently alluding to that country, said
that " Ireland had irresistible claims." He (Mr. Osborne)
was one of those who, though representing an English
constituency, but not from any paltry considerations
merely of property in Ireland, would never shrink from
saying that he thought, under the circumstances of Ire-
land, it was neither wise, beneficial, nor politic, to ex-
tend any additional taxation to that country. (Hear.)
He would go further, and say the " consolidated annui-
ties " were a gross injustice to that country, and the
labour-rate, by which money was forced upon the
people of that country, and no option was given them
in the spending it, but their roads were broken up
and the people demoralised, was a bad and unjust
system. (Hear, hear.) He would say further, that the
famine ought always to be looked upon as an-imperial
calamity—(hear, heir)—and Ireland no more charged
for it than she would have been for the expense of a de-
fence, if a foreign invader had landed in Ireland—(hear,
hear)—and till these accounts were upon a juster footing
he, for one, would r.e no party to an increase of taxation
upon Ireland. (Hear.) But, if the arguments of the
hon. member for Belfast (Mr. Davison) last night were
to have any weight, one could have little hope for Ire-
land. The hon. member, who said ho was no orator,
but a simple man of business, gave as a reason for sup-
porting the budget, that there was a most popular lord-
lieutenant, a most amiable chief secretary, and most
intelligent law officers. (Laughter and cheers.) It was
true enough—(ministerial cheers)—but was that any
reason why the people of this country were to be loaded
with the house tax ? (Cheers from the opposition.) If
he (Mr. Osborne) might speak respectfully to the Irish
members, who he thought in the main always voted
right—(hear)—for the advance of great and liberal prin.
ciples—(hear)--p-he would say to them, " Beware how
you inflame the mind of the English people by laying on
a tax you refuse to bear yourselves." Loud cries of
"Wear, hear.") But the virtues of the Irish function-
aries were no argument for laying on a tax, and would
be very little consolation to the English householder
when the collector called. (Laughter.) The Home
Secretary wound up his most interesting and spirited
speech by an elaborate panegyric upon his colleague the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Osborne) was
not prepared to say that in many points of that pane-
gyric he did not fully concur. (Hear, hear.) He would
grant all that was said as to the energy, the ability, the
great powers of the right hon. gentleman—(hear, hear)
—he would grant it ungrudgingly and fully. (Hear,
hear.) He thought the right hon. gentleman had the
ingenium velox, audacia perdita, sermo 20
take niPt
(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) Butlie
of must
him as the
ex-
ception when the Home Secretary talked
most bold and prudent financier the world had ever seen.
(Laughter.) With regard to finance, he
of that House
(Mr. Osborne)
was of opinion that the great majority
would incline to think that in financial proects "discre-
tion was the better part of valour. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) But the right hon. gentleman went
on
to say, following in the footsteps of the hon. member for
the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), that this budget must
be a most popular
budget, because there was such a cor-
dial reception at Guildhall—(laughter)—and he quoted a
passage from Lucretius, as he (Mr_. Osborne) believed ;
but he was irresistably reminded of a parallel scene in
the life of two illustrious men in bygone days at Guild-
hall, he alluded to the reception of Buckingham, and
Richard 111., when Duke of Gloster, at Guildhall.
Gentlemen would remember the quotation in Shah.
speare :
" When he had done, some followers of mine own,
lAt lower end o' the hall, hurl'd up their caps,
And some ton voices cried, ' God save King Richard !
" And thus I took the 'vantage of those few,—
." Thanks, gentle citizens, and friends,' quoth I This general applause and cheerful shout ,•
Argues your wisdom and your love to Richard. "
The passages were somewhat parallel. (Great laughter
and cheering.) He would venture to suggest to the
Home Secretary, when he quoted the reception at Guild-
hall, that it was not very probable a set of well-to-do
gentlemen, who were met to discuss the tender merits of
turtle and venison, would be inclined to criticise with