The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-11 00:00:00

it was concluded, I had thought that it was perfectly
well understood on all sides of the house that we were
to go into committee this evening, and that an opportu-
nity was then to be afforded to all members, who might
choose to accept it, of stating in what respects their
own views might differ from those which I propounded
on the part of the Government. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord the member for London has expressed so well the
feelings of the Government—and, indeed, Ithink I may
add of the house—upon thi4 subject, that I do not think
it necessary to dwell upon it at any length. (Hear,
hear, hear.) It did not occur to me that there was any
necessity to answer the questions of the hon. members
for Finsbury and Middlesex--questions which seemed
to me of a loose and inconclusive character, and having
no especial reference to the rather vague and desultory
statements with which they were prefaced. I certainly
did not say that the Government were resolved to
stand or fall by every vote in committee of ways
and means, for I should have considered such a de-
claration most arrogant and presumptuous—(hear)—
but what I did mean to convey was this, that the whole
scheme of the budget being founded upon certain prin-
ciples, we should consider as fatal to the whole any vote
that was actually subversive of those principles. I said
that the whole project being based upon certain great
principles, we must, as a matter of course, fall by any
vote the effect of which would be to cause a departure
from those principles. In the case; for instance, of the
income and property taxes, the whole policy recom-
mended by the Government being founded upon the
principle that a distinction should be recognised between
precarious and realised incomes, any renunciation on the
part of the house of that principle would, no doubt, be
fatal to the whole scheme. But if this principle be pre-
served inviolate, other regulations respecting the income
tax will be simply regarded as matters of detail, and as
such will not involve the fate of the Government.
(Hear.) So, again, with regard to the first vote—Vie
extension of the house tax—is a principle of such im-
portance that the Government are of opinion that it
ought to be insisted upon. The details of the tax
doubtlessly are also matters of importance, but it would
he arrogant and presumptuous in me to declare that the
Government are prepared to stand or fall by them.
(Hear, hear.) I trust that this explanation will be re-
garded as satisfactory. (Cheers.)
Mr. BUNCOMBE said that after the explanation o
the right hon. gentleman he did not think it necessary
to press the motion to a division.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
WAYS AND MEANS.
The house then went into Committee of Ways and Means
—Mr. W. PATTEN in the chair.
The inhabited house duty was the first question taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
following resolutions :

" That, from and after the sth day of April, 1853, the
duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 and 15 Vic.,
cap. 36, upon inhabited dwelling-houses in Great Britain,
according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and de-
termine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and
made payable upon all such dwelling-houses the following
duties, that is to say

" For every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the
household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith
occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of ten
pounds or upwards by the year ;
`• Where any such dwelling-house shall be occupied byany
person in trade who shall expose to sale and sell any goods,
wares, or merchandise in any shop or warehouse, being part
of the same dwelling-house, and in the front and on the
ground or basement story thereof ;
" And also where any such dwelling-house shall be occu-
pied by any person who shall be duly licensed by the laws
in force to sell therein by retail beer, ale, wine, or other
liquors, although the room or rooms thereof in which any
such liquors shall be exposed to sale, sold, drunk, or con-
sumed, shall not bo such shop or warehouse as aforesaid ;
" And also where any such dwelling-house shall be a farm
house occupied by a tenant or farm servant, bond fide used
for the purposes of husbandry only ' -
" There shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such
annual value of any such dwelling-house the sum of one
" And where any such dwelling-house shall not be occu-
pied and used for any such purpose and in manner aforesaid,
there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such
annual value thereof the sum of one shilling and sixpence."
The Cumusiasr having read the resolutions as far as
the words " following duties,"
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved as an amendment, "That
in lieu of the increase of the tax on houses, proposed in the
said resolution, real property shall be made to pay the
same probate and legacy duties as are now payable on per-
sonal property." He confessed he viewed With great alarm
and disfavour this proposition on the part of the Govern-
ment to extend the house tax, for he believed that it in-
volved a breach of faith with the public, who had been
given to understand last year that the house tax was im-
posed simply for the purpose of supplying the deficiency
created by the abolition of the window tax, and that it
would not be extended beyond the amount of that defi-
ciency. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was an indirect violation of that understanding, in consi-
deration of which alone, the house had been induced to
acquiesce in the tax. 'Under the aie* system, three
or four times as many persons as were now liable
to the tax would have to pay it for the future.
Almost every labouring man who occupied one room
in a house would, directly or indirectly, come within its
grasp. It would press most grievously on the industrial
classes in the metropolis and great towns, while the same
classes in the country would be comparatively, if not alto-
gether exempt. 20,000 of his (Mr. Williams) consti-
tuency, who were now free from it, would henceforward
be liable, while not one labouring man on the estate of
the hon. baronet (the member for Hertfordshire) would
have to pay the tax. Farm-house valuations differed very
widely, as everybody knew, from the valuations of city
houses, and country gentlemen were known to exercise an

irresistible influence- on the county assessors. The tax
would disfranchise 2,000 electors in the parish of Lambeth
alone, and it was his conviction that its main object was
to effect that and similar disfranchisements. did not
object to the reductions which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposed to make, though he was not sure that
the consumer would be greatly benefited by the reduction
of the duties on tea or malt ; but he was decidedly hostile
to the house tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would
act wisely by ahaudoning the tax, and extending to real
property the probate and legacy duties, now payable on
personal property only. The probate and legacy duty was
a tax which affected one class most oppressively, while
another class, composed of opulent persons, escaped it en-
tirely. Ho hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would perceive the propriety of acceding to this sugges-
tion, and if he did so, he (Mr. Williams) would find no
great difficulty in saying " aye" to the rest of his budget.
He could have wished, however, that the right hon. gentle-
man had also acknowledged the necessity of abolishing the
most objectionable of all taxes—that on soap.
Mr. IIUME did not see what practical good would re-
sult from the amendment, and advised his hon. friend to
withdraw it for the present. It had no legitimate relation
to the house tax, and was, therefore, for the present, in-
opportune. The real question for the committee just now
to consider was, whether the project of the Government
was to be accepted as a whole, or whether it was to be de-
feated in lintine, and the Government told to go about
their business. (A laugh.) If the Government were suf-
fered to retain office, they would have to bring in a bill on
the subject of the inhabited house duties, and that bill
would have to pass through all the customary stages, and
then the hon. member would have abundant opportunity
to state objections and suggest expedients.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said it was his opinion that the
proposition which he had moved could only be made in a
committee of ways and means ; it could not be brought for-
ward as an amendment on any bill of the Government. He
did not object to the remissions proposed by the Govern-
ment, but to the moans by which they meant to provide
for the supplies of the year; and he pointed to the means
which ho would prefer to substitute. On the whole, he
thought he was right in the course he had taken.
Sir R. H. INGLIS agreed with the hon. member for
Montrose as to the propriety of discussing the proposed
amendment on that occasion. But he took occasion, at the
same time, to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
reconsider the exemptions which the income and property
tax, as well as the house tax involved. He could very well
understand a system of taxation which excluded all exemp-
tions whatever, and touched the labourer at twelve shillings
a week equally as the roan of an independent income. That
was intelligible. But, if exemptions were introduced at all,
he contended—whatever might be the point at which they
fixed the limit, whether it were 1001. or 150/..—that limit
ought to be observed in all incomes, whether in the case of
the income below the limit, which was therefore exempted
altogether, or in the case of an income above the limit, which
ought to be taxed only on the amount of the excess. It
was not inconsistent to exempt the man with 1501. income,
but it was cruelty to tax a man with an income of 1511.
upon the whole amount. There Waft another subject upon
which he approved what had fallen from thei right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with he said
dergylMin incomeso
he meant in consider the case
not exceeding 100/. with a view to their relief,. the
e, to Dissenting ministers.
same principle as was aPpli l holed no one would re-
Tlud was a popositiou whichhoand
which these aSnitlemen had to contend
the house
,tle Government to consi-
Telert.then,ulileelet<si,
to their
were provided em, which
rank, and also that houses
ti t
with in plaint:killing their :type:trame zkcefordtillna
they wore Welles-al occupy wu any power of letting
He submitted these two propoeitions to
them to others.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his consideration :
first, whether, in striking a limit in the income tax, he
would not observe it in all cases, mind tax only the excess ;
secondly, whether he ought to levy a house tax on
those
ho were compelled to occupy certain houses which
theyan (l'
hld no power to sub-let.
Mr. mucarr thought the hon. gentleman would see it
was not advisable to risk the rejection of his proposition
in the existing state of the house,
a distinct proposition on the :fsPileui a
al yo
v:ermmeut t wbaes.
fore them. It were better the shouldcomulittees be allowed
to vote aye or to upon the main pioposit'ion. or himself,
nefistolilyildwasistei
he did not see the necessity for any nestvhtaxbettrng imposed,p
but when that necessityge
perty by succession Ton.
to which
the
mouse ought to agree, anti until thatl°ts°- when required,
was agreed to, he should not give his voteax'foi• any new tax
whatever. He hoped the hon, gentleman would give way.
Mr. HUDSON by no me reed with the advice of
the hon. member for Manchester,anguruthat the amendment
should be withdrawn, since the lion. member for Lambeth
signified his approval of the Budget in all except this par-
ticular item. He said his constituents, in so far as they
were connected with the shipping interest, found that the
Government in removing all their gerievances had given
them reasons to be thankful. He admitted, although a
Petition from his constituents against the house tax had
been presented by him, that if they were to have cheap
tea and cheap beer,. the' loss occasioned thereby must be
borne in some other way, but then he perceived that, while
the taxes remitted amounted to 3,000,000/., the new im-
post proposed WAS only to the extent of 100,000/. The re•
mission of the tea duty would be a direct benefit to the
consumer, and an indirect advantage, by its influence on
commerce, and our trade with China and our relations with
that country. The reduction of the malt tax would have
time most beneficial effect upon the agricultural interest
and the enjoyment of the poor. From his own exten-
sive acquaintance, he might say that the country gene-
ere perfectly satisfied with the Budget. He
knew it had produced no alarm among the
ial classes, and he believed that, if adopted,
reetocatiLlicri;,e.,.
it, would promote the development of commerce, at
the same time it increased the returns to revenue. He
(Mr. Hudson) was glad the hon. baronet the member for
Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had withdrawn his proposi-
tions. What the country wanted was this—now that the
struggle of free trade was over, that there should ben final