The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-17 00:00:00

meat whatsoever, until I see that all those questions
which aro now opened up have at least been fairly con-
sidered, and that the decisions which have been arrived
at upon them, whether they meet with my approval or
not, are decisions conformable with the rational and
deliberate convictions of the House of Commons. (Hear.)
The right honourable gentleman must excuse me if I now
impeach his policy upon a ground somewhat more broad
than even that of the house tax. I can hardly conceive a
reason which would induce me to consent, not to a single
proposition, but to a financial scheme which introduces
into the taxation of the country two, and only two, new
taxes, and which is so adroitly contrived that both of these
taxes, being both of them direct taxes, shall strike pre-
cisely the same class. (Hear, hear.) I know not whether
that was the object of the right honourable gentleman ;but
if it had been his object, I defy him to have hit upon a
nicer and more accurate calculation. The man -Those in-
come is from 501. to 1501. is also the man who lives in a
house of from 101. to 201. rent. (Hear, hear.) And now,
sir, the right honourable gentleman has rallied my right
honourable friend the member for Carlisle on the
subject of the poor clerk. The right hon. gentleman is
fond of instances. I will try him upon instances ; and, as
1 know he may not have any peculiar sympathy for the
poor clerk, I will go to those classes for which we all know
the warmth and redundancy of the sympathy of the right
honourable gentleman. I want to know how his financial
scheme will bear upon the yeoman of this country in occu-
pation of his own lands. (Hear:hear.) That is a class
that I know the right honourable gentleman esteems. In
the days when he was accustomed to make motions in this
house upon the subject of agricultural distress—(hear, hear,
and laughter)—he used carefully to inform you that it
would be a gross mistake if in viewing the agricultural
interest you looked only to the great landlords ; there was
a very large class of men, amongst the most valuable in the
community—the yeomen, the ancient proprietors of Eng-
land, that truly English class, who seem even now to revive
among you especially, and more than any other, the
days and the institutions of your Anglo-Saxon fore-
fathers. The right honourable gentleman was earnest
in their behalf. Now, how does he propose to use
them ? I take the occupiers of lands of his own to the
value of 801. a year—no uncommon case. This man, I
will suppose, lives probably in a 121. home. At pre-
sent he pays no house tax and no income tax, and perhaps
his lands are heavy wheat lands too. Well, he pays no
house tax and no income tax. He hears that his friends
have come into office. He has not a moment's hesitation—

in one way or another of the double monopoly of the
brewers and of the malt tax. Half of three farthings, or
three-eighths of a penny, is then the amount of the reduc-
tion on a quart of beer. That is, what is now sd. will
hereafter be 4g d. That is the reduction for which we ale
now called upon to surrender 2) millions of public revenue.
(Cheers.) Taking the reduction as I have stated it, it would
amount to 7 per cent. on the cost of the article, but even
supposing there was a reduction of 10 per cent., I want to
know how that is to tell on the recovery of the revenue.
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has become a pupil of free trade, and is now going. to legis-
late on the principles of free trade. One main consideration
I must tell him in the reduction of a duty is the way in
which it will stimulate the self-producing powers of the
revenue. And I want to know how the five millions that he
now receives from malt are to be reproduced, or what por-
tion of these five millions we are to receive under the re-
duced duty. He explained to-night,what I confess was to me
before obscure. Ho tells us that for 1854-5 he has estimated
his loss at 1,700,0001. upon peculiar grounds. 600,0001. he
will then obtain, which will be a payment once for all, and
which thereafter will not accrue. 200,0001. is the modest

that we had a definite and intelligible plan presented to
us. (Hear, hear.) There is nothing that can excuse the
Government, or acquit them of the heaviest responsibility
to the country, if they open a question like that of re-ar-
ranging the different contributions of all classes in the
country to the income tax, unless the production of a plan
which shall be intelligible—which may be subjected to
scrutiny—which may be tried on its merits—and which
will meet the view of the public as a plan, and not merely
as an abstraction. (Loud cheers.) If, on the other hand,
a Government, because they know that amongst a large
class of the community there is great favour entertained
for a particular mode or principle of taxation, depart from
the sound rule that binds them to submit their proposi-
tions, and to be responsible not merely for the general
ideas on which they are based, but for the means by
which they will be carried into execution—if a Govern-
ment thinks proper to appeal to favour for the sup-
port of their principle without confronting the
difficulty of carrying it into effect, then I can only say
that whatever others may do with regard to the finan-
cial policy of such a Government, I will be the firmest
opponent of such a financial policy—(cheers)—because I
know that such a course of pandering to the worst elements
of popular feeling and the coarsest passions must expose
the country to the gravest dangers. (Hear, hear.) We
are told that it is necessary to moderate and check the pro-
gress of democracy, but there is no surer way of advancing
the progress of democracy than by casting loose on the
world attractive and seductive ideas with regard to finan-
cial arrangements, which those who propose them know
cannot be carried into effect. (Cheers.) I shall explain in
a few words the view and policy with which the income
tax was first propounded ; and I may say by way of pre-
face, that the case of the fundholders is one of a score of
cases with which hon. gentlemen will have to deal ; and I
shall endeavour to show, when the proper time comes, that
if you arrange the income tax in good faith as I understand
it, that good faith will compel you to place the fundholder
at the lowest rate. (Hear, hear.) Has the right hon.
gentleman submitted to us a plan for the reconstruction of
of the income tax, or has he not ? I say that a man who
promises to vary the different rates of the income tax in
different schedules, without having formed his plan for
doing so, is guilty of a high offence against the public.
(Hear, hear.) I say that,.because it appears from what
was said by. the right hon. gentleman to-night, that the
question is involved in almost hopeless obscurity. (Cheers.)
Hon. gentlemen who did not hear the speech of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Portsmouth, may find
it convenient to say no ; but that right hon. gentleman
tested the plan of the right hon. gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and he showed that the right
hon. gentleman who says he will distinguish between
realised and precarious incomes, has, according to his re-
solution, proceeded upon no principle whatever. (Hear,
hear)—and if I understood the answer of the right hon.
gentleman, it was this, that not having had time to adjust
the details of his plan, he had proposed the tax upon the
basis of the old schedules without change ; but if he did,
why introduce exemptions with respect to those clergy-
men ? Is not that a point of detail ? (Hear, hear.) In
the first place the right hon. gentleman should recollect
that if we vote in the committee of Ways and Means that
resolution of his relating to the income tax, we will be
absolutely. precluded by the forms and rules of the house
from raising the full rate on certain income or property.
(Hear, hear.) Schedule D is now going to pay 51 per
cent. ; and what is contained in Schedule D ? The entire
realised mercantile capital of the country—every farthing
of it is contained in Schedule D. The foreign fundholders
• in this country, unless they happen to have their
. _

sum he estimates for the increased consumption.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-400,0001.
Mr. GLADSTONE—If it is 400,000 g., I am afraid he is
rather extravagant in that expectation. I will look back
to past experience. You are now going to reduce the malt
tax in a manner which will give a reduction of 7 per cent„
or we will say 10 per cent., on the price of the article ; and
the question is, what increase will that effect in the con-
sumption ? In 1830 my right hon. friend near me effected
a reduction more than twice as great by the repeal of the
beer duty. By that repeal of the beer duty he took 20 per
cent. off the price of the article, and we now find that,
after the lapse of 20 years, the aggregate increase up to
this moment is only 25 per cent. Well, if 25 per cent. in-
crease in the consuption is produced in 22 years by a re-
mission of duty amounting to 20 per cent. on the price of
the article, I want to know what is to be the amount of the
reproduction of the revenue that he now proposes to sacri-
fice ? Well, now, that is the most important light in
which this question strikes me ; but I must say that I con-
sider his scheme an irrational one if considered with regard
to producers, and to any relief that he may desire to give
them. He has got a distressed class, for I will assume
that they are distressed. There may, indeed, be some
question about that ; but there is a class that have been
distressed, and have suffered. TheSe are the cultivators of
the heavy wheat lands, and how does he propose to relieve
them ? By a boon to the cultivators of the light lands. How
is this boon to reach the cultivators of the heavy lands ?
Why, it is to be filtered through a four-fold or a five-fold
strainer, and I will certainly give but little to the farmer
of wheat lands for the advantage which will reach him.
In the first place, it is to be filtered through the closely
organised trade of the master, and secondly, through the
still more closely organised trade of the brewers. It is
then to be still further diminished by the effect of the sys-
tem of licensing public-houses, and then any benefit of the
reduction which may survive these three is to be encoun-
tered by foreign competition, and in comes the malt from
Belgium and other places to meet the British grower of
barley. But the right honourable gentleman has made
another most important announcement to-night, that is,
the withdral of the excise credits. It is important that
the house should understand the operation of these credits.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : Not the
withdrawal.

iiel;;Zturdies;;;fidence in the talents of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. Forgive me if I explain that Ido not
question the genius of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I pay to him the sincere respect that genius deserves. I
do not wish to go into any other—l will not mix any other
consideration with the feelinc, which I express'. Between
the right hon. gentleman and myself there never has been
anything in the nature of a misunderstanding, as regards
personal matters. His measures and his political conduct
I freely canvass ; but to his genius I pay as willing a testi-
mony as can be rendered by his most ardent admirers.
But now I am describing the feelings of this poor man. (A
laugh.) It is just because of the reality of the right hon.
gentleman's talents that the more bitter will be the disap-
pointment of my poor yeomen. (Laughter.) He knows
the abilities of the right hon. gentleman. He knows more
—he knows the high character as well as the distinguished
station of the noble earl at the head of the Government.
He knows and thinks that, if his friends cannot do all that
he expects or that they wish to do for him, at least they
will shield him from further injury. He has given up pro-
tection—he has given up compensation ; but surely he is
not to be wounded at their hands. But how is he treated ?
He is smitten by three taxes of which he has hitherto known
nothing. Upon his 801. rental of his lands he must pay
7d. • and this amounts to 21. 6s. Bd. His profits bring him
within the magic line of schedule E, and this adds Ils.
Bd. more to his burden ; besides which he has to pay
18s. as his contribution to the house tax. Therefore, in
consequence of the advent of the right hon. gentleman to
power, and of that brilliant and triumphant success which
the right hon. gentleman anticipates already for his budget,
he will have to pay three taxes of which he has hitherto
known nothing—these three amounting to five per cent.
upon his gross income ; and he is told that he may save a
fiftieth part of the sum upon his tea and his beer. (Hear,
hear.) Well, if he is a reflective man, and accustomed to
contemplate the works of nature, and the revolutions of the
seasons, he may draw comparisons in his own mind between
the four familiar divisions of the year and the four visits
of the tax-gatherer, upon each of which he makes his de-
mand. (Laughter.) I take another instance, that of a class
to whom he shows tender and affectionate regard, and that
class is the clergy. Sir, the right hon. gentleman proposes
to introduce on behalf of the clergy, and of the clergy alone,
a special exemption on the income tax. He proposes to
take them out of that class of life-renters—l mean those of

Mr. GLADSTONE : I cannot exactly make out the
measure he proposes, but it is at any rate a reduction or
diminution of those credits. He proposes to withdraw
600,0001., which is practically an advance to the maltsters.
How does that advance operate? That subject was ex-
plained by Sir Robert Peel in 1845, who then showed that
the system of advancing capital to the maltster was to no
small degree a compensation for any burden which the
duty might entail upon the grower ; for you actually put
capital into the hands of the traders, by means of that ar-
rangement, the plain effect of which—whether wise or not
not in another point of view I do not now inquire—is that it
facilitates the entrance of competitors into the malt trade,
and by multiplying the number of purchasers of barley,
secures the farmer a better price. That 600,0001. is to be
taken back, the number of maltsters will be proportionably
narrowed, and the competition for the farmers' produce
proportionably diminished, and the price consequently
lowered. Besides the extreme partiality of the operation
of this remission, I look upon it as one of the most ineffi-
cient measures that could be devised for the relief of those
agriculturists who are alone in a position to urge that they
have been distressed—the cultivators of heavy lands. I
must observe that it is altogether, as it appears to me, a
most delicate operation which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has undertaken. He is going to impose ono tax in
order to repeal another tax. Now that is a most uncom-
mon proceeding on the part of a Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. It is an operation which may possibly be
justified, but it is one that is sure to draw upon it the
severest and most jealous scrutiny. How will this new
tax be borne ? The tax he has proposed will fall upon per-
sons spread through all classes. It will be felt in every
portion of the community ; and how unpopular will that
tax become if, being one that is unpopular in itself, and
under any circumstances there is connected with it that
idea that the right hon. gentleman has an ulterior purpose
—that he has lurking behind a purpose to turn that re-
duction of taxation which is shown to be so unproductive
both to the consumer and to the revenue—to the com-
pensation of the agriculturists. Well, a comparison has
been made between the proceedings of the present Govern-
ment and those of Sir R. Peel, and we have been told last
night by the Secretary for the Colonies that the present
Government were acting as nearly as possible upon the
principles upon which he proceeded in the year 1842.
Now the first difficulty which arose in my mind when I
heard that declaration from a minister of the Crown was
this—Does it accord with the still more authentic declara-
tion which has proceeded from the mouth of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, the financial organ of the Govern-
ment ? Has he ever mentioned the name of Sir R. Peel
as his leader and guide in the measures he now proposes ?
Has he ever referred to that great statesman in terms that
can give the slightest reason for believing that he recog-
nises any kindred between the measures of 1842 and those
now before you ? Certainly not. His announcement is
flatly at variance with those of the Colonial Secretary.
The right hon. gentleman said, if I understood him rightly,
that he never promised a revision of taxation. What he
promised was this—that he was going to administer the
finances of the country upon new principles, that were to
do every body good—principles that had never been heard
of before. He said, addressing his constituents, " Do not
suppose that when the now Parliament assembles you will
see marshalled before you the old parties that have go-
verned the country ; you will have new principles of action
introduced, and new policies founded on those principles,
recommended to the House of Commons." Are these
principles, then, new, or are they old, or both new and
old ? The right honourable gentleman says they are new,
the Home Secretary says they are old. I do not know 1
whether there are any honourable gentlemen in the house
who can manage to hold with both. I cannot. I am with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think both that the
principles themselves are new, and that the mode of
carrying them into execution is new, I may presume to
have an opinion on the question of what were Sir It. Peel's
principles of commercial reform. Long associated with a
recollection that will ever be dear to me, and sharing in the
first struggles that he made for that great object, I must
necessarily have had many opportunities of observing the
workings of his mind upon the subject, and the whole
house and the country have ample means of knowing by
records of the time, if their memories do not enable them
to know, what his principles were. The principles on
which his commercial reforms rested were—first, to set free
the raw materials of industry from duty. How has the
right hon. rgentleman acted on that principle ? There is
still one raw material, and a most elementary raw material,
that Sir Robert Peel, though he had the wish never had
the power, and the late Government, though they also had
the wish, never had the power, to entirely free from duty
mean timber. The repeal of that duty would have ope-
rated most beneficially for the shipping interest. But I
have heard an honourable gentleman to-night say that be-
cause only 7s. 6d. a ton will be saved on one class of ships,
and 2s. 6d. on another, the relief thus given would be in-
significant in amount. Why, if the average reduction were
only ss. per ton, that would amount to 501. or 1001. in the
building of some classes of ships. But I wish to point out
to the house that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had a surplus of 1,500,0001., one principle of Sir R. Peel
would have led him to consider whether there was any raw
material in the tariff not set free from fiscal burdens. He
has, as he says, examined the tariff most carefully, but he
has passed by the article of timber. What was the next of
Sir R. Peel's principles ? It was to remove or diminish
duties, protective in their character, and especially those
that fell upon articles of food. Are there no duties of that
character still remaining in the tariff? Are there no duties
on the importation of silk, of butter, or of cheese ? But,
the right hon. gentleman has passed them by, and I might
mention many other instances. Ho has passed by every
one Of them—he leaves them as he found them, and that
is, in his view, acting on the principles of unrestricted
competition. He certainly does not re-enact protective
duties, but he stops at the point where he finds the work of
reform, and declines to carry it on. The third of Sir R.
Peel's principles was to clear from the tariff unproductive
and unnecessary duties, whose collection absorbed the whole,
or the greatest part of the produce. The right hon. gen-
tleman has done nothing whatever in pursuance of this
principle. The last principle of Sir R. Peel was to reduce
the price of highly-taxed articles of food. And, passing by
every other point in the policy of Sir R. Peel, on that,
and that alone has the Chancellor of the Exchequer chosen
to bestow not only his whole surplus, but a great deal
more. Three of Sir R. Peel's principles he has left en-
tirely untouched, and the fourth he has exaggerated by the
course I have described. Does he in that, or does he not,
offend against another principle of Sir R. Peel ? What-
ever Sir R. Peel did with respect to commercial reform,
he did it always subject to the paramount obligation, of
which he was conscious, to maintainthe principle that ample
sums should be raised in the year for the sevrice of the year,
and the maintenance of a steady surplus of revenue above
expenditure. He never allowed even his eagerness for com-
mercial reform to make him deviate for one moment from
that fundamental and yet more important view. All his
operations were conducted subject to the control of that
principle. It is the principle, as I shall presently show,
that the right hon. gentleman has disregarded and con-
temned. That is the case, as I conceive, of the commercial
principles of Sir R. Peel, and that is the relation of the
Government to those commercial principles. But Sir R.
Peel, it is said, performed the operation which the right
hon. gentleman is now preparing. He imposed a tax—
the income tax—to repeal customs duties, a case precisely
parallel to the course pursued by the right hon. gentleman.
The right hon. gentleman is going to impose new taxes
upon the householder ; he increases taxes that have been
paid already, and imposes them upon large classes that
have not yet paid them, in order to repeal the malt tax.
That is, I should say, he is going to impose a tax on the
general body of the community, to make a most ineffectual
and worthless attempt at the relief, not of a class, but of a
portion of a class, This is precisely an inversion of the
policy of Sir R. Peel, for he imposed a tax on a class to re-
lieve the entire body of the people. It was to you [turn-
ing to the Ministerial benches] that he made his appeal.
You—the party opposite—are the men called upon, as the
possessors of property ; to you he made his special appeal
to accept the income tax, in order that that relief might
be given to the springs of industry, and to the great con-
suming classes of the country. You answered that ap-
peal, and I hope you will now maintain the character you
then gained by the support you gave Sir R. Peel, in the
struggle for that great benefit, which you enabled him to
confer on his country. I proceed to another question
which must not be omitted, for it is of vital import-
ance, and lies right at the root of the whole discussion
before us—l mean the question of the income tax. My
right honourable friend the Secretary for the Colonies is
very much mistaken if he think that in approaching that
question, all he has to do is to set aside the particular ob-
jection that I have taken as regards the particular case of
the fundholder, or to pass jokes at the expense of what he
calls my ingenuity. (A laugh.) The right honourable
gentleman and the Government may depend upon it that
they have opened a question of a most formidable charac-
ter ; and in what position is it presented to us to-nigh ? I
really though, until the distinction that was made to-night,

dividends paid -by an agent, are to be taxed 54d., bui
if the dividends are paid by an agent in this country,
then they are taxed at 7d. (Hear, hear.) I may be met
by being told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no
idea of the amount of foreign funds and securities held in
this country—(hear, hear)—but well-informed men in the
city of London have told me that they do not amount to
less than 80,000,0001. or 100,000,000/. • not so great in
amount as the mercantile capital—that may be calcu-
lated by hundreds of millions—another of the exceptions
with which we shall have to deal. (Hear, hear.) It appears
that the great finance Minister who is going to revise your
system of taxation, and introduce new plans that will
benefit every one and injure no one—who is going, above
all, to reconstruct your income tax—asks you to pass a vote
to put 54d. on schedule D, which will prevent you from
putting the full tax on all this realised income, which he
says himself ought to pay the full tax. The view of the
income tax as first proposed was one that did honour to
the great statesman who conceived it. (Loud cheers.) It
was undoubtedly required in part to meet a deficit, but it
had also this ulterior and principal purpose—to effect a
great and needful commercial reform ; to lighten the springs
of industry ; to give activity to trade ; and to cheapen com-
modities of all descriptions. (Hear, hear.) My belief is,
that Sir Robert Peel viewed the income tax as a temporary
measure—(hear, hear)— -by which I mean a measure that
was to continue in force so long as the great reason that
called it into existence was to continue in force. (Hear,
hear.) I mean a bona fide temporary measure, a temporary
measure not limited absolutely to three or five years, but
the number of years that would be required to effect com-
pletely a great system of commercial reform. (Hear, hear.)
That was the true basis of the income tax. (Hear.) The
income tax is odious in the judgment of many gentlemen in
this house, and I do not think it is an unreasonable senti-
ment ; it is open to argument, but I do not pretend to say it
is an unreasonable opinion. It may be thought to bear
hardly on various classes of persons, on annuitants, on per-
sons receiving salaries, and, above all, on persons in profes-
sions ; and, in a secondary degree, on persons exercising
trades, but surely that which brought the bane brought also
in no small degree the antidote. With a tax of 7d. on
actual receipts, and as regarded land with a tax of 7d. on
something more than actual receipts, commercial reforms
were effected that made the receipts far larger than they
ever had been before. (Hear.) And though persons receiv-
ing salaries, and engaged in professions, might at first sight
undoubtedly object to paying the same rate as the posses-
sors of property, I will ask, were not the articles which
they consumed cut down in price, and did they not receive
the benefit of that reduction? (Hear.) The right hon.
gentleman very properly said, in speaking of the clerk,
that there is no one who received so much advantage from
the imposition of the income tax and the commercial re-
forms as he has done, because he is a consumer and is not
a producer of any saleable commodities ; but does not the
right hon. gentleman see that that applies to the whole
class of persons receiving salaries ? But though I say this,
I don't deny that the question of the reconstruction of the
income tax is open. All I say to the right hon. gentleman
is this, "Let us have a plan." (Loud cheers.) I consider
that the House of Commons will forfeit and forget its duty
if it deals with this matter in the abstract. Instead of
commanding the respect of the country, and making a pro-
vision for its permanent interest, it will become a mere
panderer to public opinion, and be driven hither and thither
by the force of it. What is the use of a Minister of the
Crown rising in his place, and saying the time is come
*hen we must recognise a difference between temporary
and precarious incomes, and when challenged upon the ab-
surdities and anomalies, inconsistencies and self-contradic-
tions of his plan, by a gentleman of weight in the house,
he says, " That is not my plan 1 I found it in the schedules
as they stand • but they are all to be reconstructed." One
word on a small interlude that took place in vindication of
the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham), whom the
Chancellor of the Exchequer " respects but does not re-
gard."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCITFIQUER.—I did
s the right hon. gentleman
not say that.
will
co.
rrGLecAt DS
me.
ONE.—Perhaps
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (rising)—l
did not use those words. I do not recollect those words.
(Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh 1") I may in the haste have
said something to that effect ; but not, I hope, in those
terms. (Cheers, and cries of "Oh, oh !")
Mr. GLADSTONE—If it were a mere hasty word.; of
course I should be the last person to take notice of it ; but
n allusion beenwe
e n
tmh aede
which I am part proprietor—l refer to the comparison
which
position of a bishop and a
judge:
honourableP° by my right hon. friend, in
friend the Secretary for the
Colonies denied the comparison, because he said a judge
could be removed from his office ; and I now venture to
a
My drew
right
ihasg between t
say a bishop may be deposed. If my right hon. friend
pursues the case a little further he will see that the two
cases approximate as closely as possible. I refer him to an
act that passed in 1843, under which a bishop who is
incapable may have the spiritualities of his diocese trans-
ferred to another bishop, and the temporalities of his
diocese transferred to another ecclesiastic. I have asked
the governor of the Bank of England, who agrees in prin-
ciple with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will
accept his plan, and he said it was impossible ; for what
does the right honourable gentleman do ? The salient
point of the whole case is on the public annuities, above
all annuities for years expiring in 1860. They were in the
one ease always chosen by
common consent, to make
visible, as it was thought, the uncertainty of the present
acts. The right honourable gentleman leaves this capital
and crying grievance—so much of a grievance, indeed, that
it has always been made by common consent the standard-
bearer to the rest, precisely where he 'found it. The
annuitant is still included in Schedule C, and is still liable
to 7d. in the pound on his interest and his capital.
Now no two men have agreed upon a plan for getting
rid of these difficulties. (Hear, hear.) You appointed a
committee which sat in 1851 and 1852, and examined wit-
nesses. That committee looked the question in the face,
and the consequence was that they could not agree upon a
plan. The honourable member for Montrose agreed upon
a plan, but he agreed with whom ? Why he agreed with
himself. (Laughter.) My right hon. friend the member
for Wiltshire agreed upon a plan too, and he also agreed
with himself. The truth seems to be that government no
more than anybody else have agreed upon a plan. Now I
have endeavoured to deal manfully with this question. I
say it behoved the Government to inquire into this sub-
ject, and see if they could not discover a plan which would
be likely to satisfy the wishes of the community. I see
at least no reason why they should announce that they
intended to give effect to the principle before they had
inquired whether effect could be given to it. It is a
serious condition for the country when the Ministers of
the Crown—when a government appointed to stop the pro-
gress of democracy—(cheers)—stoops to pursue a course in
which they endeavour to call upon the Conservative party
to support them, Now I beg to touch on the last subject,
I think, on which I shall trouble the house. (Ironical
cheers, answered by counter cheers.) I pass from the in-
come tax with only this remark, which I commend to the
serious consideration of hon. gentlemen—namely, that
while I blame the conduct of the Government, I can make
no complaint I must say of the favourable reception which
their proposition, if it may be so called, appears to have
met with at the hands of the great bulk of their sup-
porters. Those hon. gentlemen especially represent the
landed interest in this house. They already pay the full
rate of income tax, and they are now ready to accede to
the principle of the plan which will not only lead them to
continue paying that full amount, but which will, through
the operation of exemptions, throw on them a larger bur-
den. But I wish to commend this point seriously to their
consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it
is time to recognise the distinction between permanent and
precarious incomes. So far I am ready to follow him, sav-
ing always my right to support the case of the fundholder.
I am ready to follow him into the examination of his plan.
But the right hon. gentleman, and those who support him,
should consider that there is another kind of gradation of
which little or nothing has yet been said. It is no doubt
true that the medical man with his 3001. a-year is a poorer
man, and a good deal more so, than he who has 3001. in the
funds. But is there not the yeoman of 501. a-year, who can-
not quite so well afford to pay 7d. in the pound as the duke of
this or the marquis of that, who, being like the yeoman in
possessing land property, differ from him in this, that
while he possesses land property of the value of 501. a year,
they possess landedproperty worth 50,0001. a year? (Hear.)
I hope hon. gentlemen will well consider whether they are
prepared not only to distinguish between the landowner
and the professional man, but likewise to graduate between
the holders of large and the holders of small properties. I
come now to the question which is vital to the whole of
this matter. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask,
included in his new scheme principles that involve the sub-
version of all those rules of prudence heretofore deemed
necessary for the conduct of the financial affairs of the
country ? Has he, in other words, presented to the house

them who have under 1001. a-year--he takes them out of
the class of life-renters to which they belong, and to grant
them the benefit of a peculiar exemption. Well, I must
confess, while there is no man more bound than I am to
study the interests, the temporal interests, of the clergy in
this house, I must confess that I am far from convinced of
the wisdom of bestowing upon them an exceptional pri-
vilege. I do not wish to see the clergy held up as in-
vested, not only with the public endowments that they en-
joy, to the satisfaction as well as to the benefit, I believe,
of the public, but with exceptional privileges that may
attract odium and envy. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, the
clergy have a real grievance at this moment. It is ad-
mitted by all authorities—Professor Jones, Mr. Cornewall
Lewis, and every man who has examined the subject of
local rating will tell you—that the clergy suffer cruelly by
being rated upon their gross incomes. Now, I would rather
redress that grievance of the clergy than grant them a
new and exceptional privilege. What is the feeling, I want
to know, of the clergy of 1201. a year, under the circum-
stances of the accession of the right hon. gentleman to
power ? lam supposing the case of the village clergyman,
who will fall, therefore, under the sweep of the right hon.
gentleman's income tax. This clergyman has greater rea-
son, if possible, than the yeoman, to build expectations
upon the right ion. gentleman's accession to office, because
it is from local taxation that this clergyman suffers. It is
from local taxation that this clergyman suffers, and who,
I want to know, is the great doctor of all England on the
subject of local taxation ? That clergyman will have
watched with the deepest interest the past career of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He will have seen that he has argued the grievances of
local taxation with the utmost power, with unrivalled
assiduity, and with that peculiar pathos which always be-
longs to great earnestness. (Cheers, and laughter.) What
will have been the clergyman's expectations on this occa-
sion, and what will be his condition ? Why, he will have
read the speech of the right hon. gentleman on the intro-
duction of his budget—he will have found that the right
hon. gentleman, with a gravity which cannot be too highly
commended—(laughter)—stated in detail the case of the
agriculturists under the head of local taxation, wrapped
up all their claims in a bundle, and pitched them into the
bottomless abyss. (Cheers.) Sir, we are sometimes told,
and I agree with it, that there is much, not only in the
doing of a thing, but in the manner in which it is done.
Those who were present in this house will recollect the
manner in which this was done. I myself have voted
with the right hon. gentleman on previous occasions
for the relief of the farmer in respect of local taxa-
tion. (Hear, hear.) I did it at much expense of feeling,
and I have been often censured for that vote. I did it
in no vain idea that the landlords of this country were en-
titled to compensation for the repeal of the corn laws. I
did it, whether rightly or -wrongly, upon this principle—
that there was much oft feeling mixed up with this ques-
tion, and that the farmer of this country was passing
through a crisis in which the holding out of a helping
hand by Parliament would have given him in a moment of
uncertainty and of danger the greatest encouragement to
persevere in that struggle his success in which was essen-
tial to us all. I, therefore, had these feelings on the sub-
ject of local taxation; but I must say, that if I had been
the sternest and bitterest opponent of the granting of a
single farthing of relief to the farmer, I would have been
perfectly satisfied with the matter and the manner when,
in his speech on the budget, the right hon. gentleman dis-
posed finally of the question of local taxation. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) Well, sir, that is the case with the
clergyman. His expectations are smashed. He will have
to pay income tax on his income of 1201. a year, and to pay
on his house of 15/. rent towards the house tax ; although
at present he knows nothing of either the house tax or the
income tax. If the right hon. gentleman's budget— I
make the supposition—l think it a strong one—if his
budget succeeds—(laughter)—this clergyman will pay
31. 10s. 3d. in income tax, and 1/. 2s. 6d. house tax,
making together 41. 125., or nearly 4 per cent, of his in-
come. That will be the consequence of the right hon.
gentleman's accession to office. (Cheers.) Well, my third
reason (and it is the only other reason with which I
will trouble the house) for opposing the reduplication
of the house tax, is because it is connected with the
repeal of the malt tax. Now, on the question of the
repeal of the malt tax, I mean to give no opinion which
would exclude, under favourable circumstances, its fair
and favourable consideration. Although I grant you you
ought not to regard the consumption of malt with pre-
cisely the same favour as you can look upon the consump-
tion of tea or coffee, yet on the other hand, I must recol-
lect that while malt liquor is conterminous on the one side
with tea and coffee, it is conterminous on the other side
with the article of spirits, and is still the old beverage of
the country; and if you could succeed in breaking down
the monopoly of the brewer's trade, and also effect a modi-
fication of the licensing system, thereby giving freedom to
the trade, and insuring real relief to the consumer, and
which, if it was found necessary, would still leave you a
revenue from the article in its final manufactured state—if
such a scheme as that could be devised, then I think that
the repeal of the malt tax might fairly, under certain cir-
cumstances, come under the consideration of this house.
But the scheme before us has not one of these recommen-
dations. The hon. baronet the member for Kent (Sir E.
Doling), made a most admirable and candid speech on this
subject. He said that the repeal of one-half the malt tax
would do little or no good, but he accepted it as a stepping-
stone; and if I may venture to interpret in words what he
did not fully express. I understood him to mean that the
repeal of half the malt tax would leave the remainder of
it in a position so indefensible, would exhibit the tax as
so unsatisfactory in itself, and would make the amount of
evil entailed by the restriction so monstrous, as compared
with the remainder, that it would be a powerful lever
for effecting the abolition of the rest of the tax. That
was the reason which influenced the honourable baronet.
But that is not a reason which can influence the House of
Commons. If we have got, which I shall show that we
have not, 2,500,0001. of public income to dispose of, we
must dispose of it in the best manner we can. It is not
enough to say that you will do something good by the
change. You must look over the existing duties calmly
and candidly, and consider by what relief or remission you
can do the greatest good to the consumer, to trade, and, to
the revenue. By that rule, and by that de only, we can
judge. And if a latent idea lurks in the mind of some that
although the malt tax may not be a very good tax to pro-
pose for the public interest—may not be a very good pro-
position for the public interest, yet there is a smack and a
savour of compensation to the public interest about it—
then, I must say that, in the first pla.ge, I think it untrue
in the point of fact ; and that, in the second place, it is en-
tirely at variance with the principle which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer has himself laid down to-night, and on other
nights, in the fairest and most explicit manner, that all
remissions of taxation must be judged of as public benefits,
and that, if any benefit accrae to the grower, or producer
of any article, it must be merely that accidental benefit
that always accrues to the producer of any article the
price of which is reduced. The right honourable gen-
tleman has been facetious to-night on the subject of the
articles used, to show that the repeal of the malt tax will
not reach the consumer. He purported to aim these
shafts exclusively at the gentlemen opposed to him ; but
it did appear to me that there was a sidelong dart which
found its way to the side of one of the most respectable
members of the house—the member for the North Riding
of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley). There is not a greater authority
on the subject of the malt tax • and what estimate does he
give us after having studied the question during the whole
of his parliamentary career ? What does he say as to the
amount of the benefit which is to reach the consumer from
the repeal of one-half of the malt tax ? He says that sd.
is the present price of a quart of malt liquor ; 2d. is the
cost pneeof it, id, is the duty; 2id is, as he says, the effect

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 17, 1852.

a budget without a surplus ? I submit that he has pre-
sented a budget without a surplus. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer said there were no profits at all-
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : A mil-

lion and a half.
Mr. GLADSTONE : Well, if you hold to that, I will
tell you how that matter stands. The case is really this :
the Exchequer Loan Fund Commissioners have had two
systems of administration. In one of those systems,
which to a certain extent depended on each other, there
was a discretionary power given, and if the accounts be
accurate, there has been a considerable profit from the
operations which have been conducted in the exercise of
that discretion. Whilst, however, the commission, in the
free exercise of its right arm, had been making money for
the public, it had been spending money faster than
it made it by the compulsory exercise of its left arm.
The right honourable gentleman has now, for the first
time, in detail told us plainly that the 400,0001.
which appears in the ways and means, and which
constitute his sole surplus, are 400,0001. not belonging
to the services of the year, not drawn from the people
by the service of the year, but repayments of money, for-
merly obtained upon the credit of the country. The right
hon. baronet stated that the Government did not send its
balances to the bank because the bank allowed no interest.
The right hon. gentleman can hardly have considered the
elementary terms between the Government and the bank.
It was true in the letter, but not in the spirit, that the
bank gave interest for the balances of the Government. But
what does it matter whether you receive interest on your ba-
lances, or the bank engages to transact your business and lend
you money when required at small rates of interest? When
the bank charter comes to be granted, the directors will cast
up their averege balances, and will be regulated by their
amount, as to the terms they mill give you for its renewal.
But, apart from this question, the sum of 400,0901. is
neither more nor less than borrowed money, and it is this
which, upon the showing and statement of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, alone constitutes his surplus. (Cheers.)
The House of Commons was called upon to consider whether
it would give its sanction to a financial scheme which
proposed to create a surplus only out of the borrowed
money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to vamp up a surplus out of borrowed money, and
with that fictitious surplus he hoped to obtain the sanction
of the house. I fully agree with the right hon. gen-
tleman that the committee in 1812 recommended that
this fund should be devoted to " ways and means," in
order to its being applied to the payment of the debt ;
but at that time there was a considerable surplus re-
venue. The same remark will apply to the recommenda-
tion of the committeeoflB2B, also quoted by the righthon.
gentleman. I am well satisfied with one or two of the ex-
planations offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I
was pleased with what he said with respect to the Kafir
war, and I cannot bring myself to criticise his intelligence
too harshly. Let us cherish the illusion, if it be one, till
at all events it is displaced by intelligence not open to dis-
pute. I thank him also for his explanation respecting the
malt tax for the years 1844 and 1845. though I think he
has not allowed sufficient for the drawback, or for that
reduction in the quantity of malt consumed by the
brewers previous to the drawback. (Loud cheers.)—
I am not satisfied with his statement respecting the re-
fining of sugar in bond. It will have the effect of increasing
differential duties and increasing the expense of collecting
the revenue. In his statement with respect to the income
tax there is a palpable hiatus in his figures, and upon ad-
ding them up the total falls short by nearly 140,0001.
(Cheers.) These are not times when we ought to trifle with
the revenue. No economy is so good as that of maintain-
ing the finances in a high state of credit. The right hon.
gentleman has referred with triumph to the high price of
the funds, but every one knows that the money market is,
to a great extent regulated by those who buy with the
view of selling again immediately for profit; and not with a
view to permanent investment. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has departed from the sound policy of supporting a
surplus revenue, and no minister will ever receive my sup-
port for his financial policy which proceeds upon such a sys-
tem. It is a principle most dangerous, and most of all dan-
gerous and inconsistent in a Conservative Government.
The right hon. gentleman spoke of terminating the war of
classes. Why, sir, he has done more than any other man
to revive and renew that war—(cheers, and cries of " oh ")
—and if I saw the hon. member for the West Riding (Mr.
Cobden) in his place, who I know to be as strongly attach-
ed to the principle of establishing a difference in the income
tax, I would make my appeal to him, and say, " That is
your principle, and you are ready to adopt a reasonable
plan for that purpose ; " but, I ask you, if you approve of
a Government which is submitting its plan, announces a
popular principle, obtains a temporary harvest of popu-
larity. and leaves the question of giving effect to its
announcements to the chapter of accidents. (Cries of
" oh," and cheers.) I will ask gentlemen who are so
squeamish on the subject of anxiety for popularity, if
they heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, in which he has laid out before the public the
good deeds of the Government, as a shopman lays
out his wares ? (Laughter and ironical cheers). Many
similar deeds have been done by former Governments, but
they were never paraded before the house and country as
they have been by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-
night; as though they were the carrying out of one of the
" new principles"—(a laugh)—upon which we are hereafter
to be governed by enchanters and magicians, has at any
rate been governed by men of sense and honour in former
years ; and I venture to say that no man who has held high
office has not over and over again effected operations when
the occasion required of equal or greater importance with-
out parading them to the house in a speech on the budget.
(Loud cheers.) When I speak of the right hon. gentle-
man renewing the war of classes, I do not mean
that he is reviving it on the question of protection ;
but I found my statement on the fact of his having
launched opinions with respect to the reconstruction of
the income tax, not supported by any executory means.
(Cheers.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer closed his
speech by stating that he was opposed by a coalition. (Mi-
nisterial cheers.) What is the meaning of these charges of
combination and coalition ? and where is the evidence by
which they are supported? Is it because the right hon.
baronet the member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) opposes
the budget—and I likewise have the misfortune to do so—
that there is therefore a factions combination between us ?
Does the evidence of factious combination depend upon
concurrence in a vote ? If so, why was not the com-
plaint of combination raised about a fortnight ago, when
we, from a sense of justice and duty, gave a vote not alto-
gether inconvenient to the Government ? (Cheers and
laughter.) And why is it, because we now conscientiously
differ and dissent from the financial policy of the Govern-
ment, that we are not to be free again to give an honest and
independent vote ? (Cheers.) It seems to me that the
right hon. baronet and the right hon. the Secretary of State
for the Colonies appear to think that they have a vested
interest in the votes of hon. members near me. (A laugh.)
I vote against the budget of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, not only because I disapprove upon general grounds
of the principles of that budget, but emphatically and
peculiarly, because in my conscience=though it may be an
erroneous belief—it is my firm conviction that the budget
is one—l will not say the most liberal, nor the most radical,
but I will say the most subversive in its tendencies and ulti-
mate effects which I have ever known submitted to this
house. (Cheers and counter cheers.) It is the most regardless
of those general rules of prudence which it is absolutely ne-
cessary we should preserve, and which itis perfectly impos-
sible that this house, as a popular assembly, should ob-
serve unless the Government sets us the example, and
uses its influence to keep us in the right course. Sir,
the House of Commons is a noble assembly, worthy of its
historical and traditional associations ; but it is too much
to expect that we should teach the Executive its duty in
matters of administration and finance. If I vote against
the Government, I vote in support of those Conservative
principles (derisive cheers, followed by loud counter
cheers)—which I thank God are common in a great degree
to all parties in the British House of Commons, but of
which I thought it was the peculiar pride and glory of the
Conservative party to be the champions and the leaders.
Are you not the party of 1842 ? Are you not the
party who, in times of difficulty, chose to cover a
deficit, and to provide a large surplus ? And are you
the same party to be united now in a time of prosperity,
to convert a large surplus into a deficiency? (Cheers.) I
appeal to you by what you then were. I appeal to you to
act now as you did then. Us you have cast off. Ido not
blame you for that. I am, indeed, always disposed to
view with regret the rupture of party ties—my disposition
is rather to retain them. I confess that I look, if not with
suspicion, at least with disapprobation, on any one who is
disposed to treat party connections as matters of small im-
portance. My opinion is, that party ties closely ap-
pertain to those principles of confidence which we
entertain for the House of Commons. But us you have
cast off for inconsistency. Have we ever complained of
that ? Have we ever made it matter of charge against
you ? No, certainly not ; you owe us no grudge on that
account. But you must remember that you also have a
character to maintain—that you also are on your trial—
that you also are bound to look with suspicion on those
principles of financial policy which depart from those rules
that not only all statesmen, but the common sense of the
country, agree to be essential to the prosperity of this nation.
You are now asked to vote for a budget which consecrates
as it were the principle of a deficiency, and which en-
dangers the public credit of the country, and which
may peril our safety—if, indeed, the circumstances
of
the present day are circumstances of uneasiness ; and if
the Government have thought it right to call upon you for
increased exertions in providing for the defences of the comi-
try—(cheers)—l say, then, that I vote against this budget in
concert, at least in company, with the right honourable
baronet the member for Halifax, feeling that in giving that
vote I do the work, so far as depends upon me, which you
ought to join with me in doing. (Loud cheers.) Ido not
express that sentiment in an offensive manner, but I say
it because I feel deeply attached—having sat for so many
years in this house, and having been connected during many
of those years with public office, I feel profoundly attached
to the institutions of the country. I look back with
regret upon the days when I sat nearer to many of my hon.
friends opposite than I now am, and I feel it my duty to
use that freedom of speech which I am sure, as English-
men, you will tolerate, when I tell you that if you give
your assent and your high authority to this most unsound
the
ed
Government
enoowf
—you may accompany _onyewuhimchaythreefufineeanmcryale7pheeami
the Chancellor of the Exchequer
into the lobby ; but my belief is that the. day will come
when you will look back upon this vote—as its consequences
ti principles based—you sd
sooner or later unfold themselves—you N.nlllook back upon
this vote with bitter, but with late and ineffectual, regret.
(Loud and prolonged cheers.)
After an abortive attempt on the part of Mr. CONOLLY
to address the house,
The committee divided.
The numbers were—
Ayes ................... r....
N0e5........................

28G
305

Majority against the Government 19
The house received the result with repeated bursts of
applause.
On our admission to the gallery, we found
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER standing.
When comparative silence was obtained, he said :—With
regard to the vote just come to by the committee, it will
be more convenient for the transaction of public business
that the house at its rising should adjourn to Monday. I
shall therefore at present move that you report progress
and ask leave to sit again.
The house then resumed, and the chairman reported pro-
gress.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON moved that the house at its ris-
ing adjourn to Monday.
The motion was agreed to, and the house adjourned at a
quarter to four o'clock.

CARGOES OF GOLD.—The Lady Flora, which sailed
from Port Phillip on the 4th August for London with
77,500 ounces of gold, valued at 310,0001. sterling, put
into Rio Janeiro on the 16th October, and sailed for
London on the 28th idem. The second mate had been
detected pilfering some gold, and sent home under arrest.
The Emperor, with 8,000 ounces of gold from Sydney,
has put into Monte Video in a leaky state, and this
amount of the precious metal has been transferred to her
Majesty's steamer Plumper, for conveyance to England.