The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-14 00:00:00

././"" --- •
,- . , • . •
L 1 1-------57 iV--.-----..'--.---" ' 1---(4-2-----/
1......,
..,,,...,.....
:/
- -- • /'- . -
"..i. ,Rs Ern ,•''• ~.--4.- ; . ie„ ''-..,, ---....., c.,., —OO ~;-,,, :,,,;- • 0 4at, lii,, ;., •-:
~,,,,, 4,
.. V -
•••,,, Zt. 0 n,. -.." \ . ,•: -.'.'"..--,,,"3.: ''
\ .... 1 I
. ' ,•,' 1 . :,;4
'....'i ..4., • i ,Ai ?; .t.; 4,t , „..,t,- :-f,,:, -,,,......,,--..., ~ ~„,„,,,t) .
4-,. , e, . .f, - ,lt, ~;...... 'N' N. V. .It ''l7
. s sf'
''''r.— —f'
'-'4
:.--
' ' :: ' •',
.A. sv ,t „V !,
,<;V; <''' i',,r, %41,..
• 4::-.-.. ; ,0. $: • •-r.3 -0
--_. ',-;,-__:' ' r ~,,;4.: -.,,,0,j, 'fo , s+-- cf ~, 1 ers',------ ,
`4't,:, . : .:11',, '
-L'''-'?"'"" `" ////t4:7l' - --.11-Z-•'. * '-;1 ZZS/4111...L..106 ".1 le '''" ,„ , 1-4 DA 0I T ' ""' • ..
'C-,,,,F.4::','",• -.",„ • l• i.'
,5,*,./
....;, ... _.l, . a ni) ,:,,f,, Dlf, ~,:t.„4,7
.1111111 h-,,,:r mtl .a. —•-
_:....,. 0.-..
....., / N..,
er,.. .

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, EVENING, DECEMBER 14, 185'2.

FINE HEAD of HAIR, WHISKERS, AND
MUSTACHIOS. The successful results of the last half cen-
tury have proved beyond question, that
ROWLaNDS' MACASSAR OIL
is endowed with singularly nourishing powers in the growth and
restoration of the human hair, and when every other specific has
failed.
This celebrated Oil is now universally acknowledged to be the
cheapest, and superior to all other preparations for the Hair. It pre-
vents it from falling oft or turning grey—strengthens weak hair—
produces a thick and luxuriant growth—and makes it beautifully
soft, curly, and glossy. In the growth of Whiskers, Bp brows, and
Mustachios, it is unfailing in its stimulative operation. In reference
to the Hair of early childhood, the use of the Oil is attended with the
happiest effects; mild, invigorating, and purifying in every instance,
it dispels scurf and dandruff, and renders unnecessary the use of the
fine comb.—Price 3s. 6d. and 7s. ; or Family Betties (equal to four
small) at lOs. 6d., and double that size, 21s.
On the wrapper of each bottle are the words, " ROWLAND'S
MAC SSAR OIL,' in two lines. Sold by A. ROWLAND & SON 3,
20, Hatton Garden, London, and by all Chemists and Perfumers.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

that all the Kaffirs taken at Waterkloof were instantly
hung, and, if so, whether that course was justified by the
laws of war. (Hear, hear.)

HOUSE OF LORDS—(Y4STERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wool-
sack at five o'clock.
On the motion of the Earl of DESART, the West
India Colonies Loan Act Amendment Bill was read
a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER, the Com-
mons Inclosure Bill was read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

THE BUDGET.
The house then went into committee of ways and
means, Mr. W. PATTEN in the chair. On the resolution
for doubling the house tax being read,
Mr. DAVIDSON said, as the representative of the
large commercial town of Belfast, he was desirous not to
give a silent vote on the question. Having viewed the
financial statement as a whole, he asked himself whether
it, was founded on the principles of justice, would pro-
mote the general interests of the community, was in
harmony with the principle of unrestricted competition
as lately adopted, and unloosed the fetters which bound
the arm of the shipping interest ; and he rejoiced to be
able to answer all these questions in the affirmative.
He therefore, on behalf of himself and his constituents,
tendered the warmest acknowledgments to the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer for the Budget which he had sub-
mitted to the House. He had come to the conclusion
that a man of genius might also be a man of figures.
(Hear.) In fact, he thought that the discussion on the
propositions of the right hon. gentleman had come to an
end, and that they were generally approved of. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN proceeded to say—lf the hon. gentle-
man who has just sat down had offered one word of ar-
gument in reply to the able speech which my right hon.
friqnd the member for Halifax delivered on Friday last,
I should have felt it my duty to recur to those topics ;
but the hon. gentleman has not ventured to grapple with
that speech—the statenfents and arguments in it remain
unanswered, and relieve me from the necessity of touch-
ing on the principal parts of the Budget. The hon. gen-
tleman oppofilte says he represents Belfast. On a ques-
tion of taxes affecting the people of England, I think it
would have been better if he had remained silent. (Hear,
hear.) Certainly, • • Id not have made the remarks
lam going to ma • i .6t for his obtrusive activity on
this question, which oes not concern his constituents.
(Hear, hear.) The honkentleman is an illustration of
the value of having what is called one United Kingdom,
where we have different modes of taxation. We are now
discussing primarily the house tax, which the hon. mem-
ber cordially concurs in passing. That house tax is a
tax for England and Scotland, Belfast having no interest
whatever in the matter. (Hear, hear.) We are going
to deal with the income tax. Now, the hon. gentleman
has himself to thank for these remarks, which I should
not have ventured to make but for his interfering in this
matter. He is going to support the income tax, levied
on the trades and professions of this country—(hear)—
levied on my constituents in Yorkshire, on the manufac-
turers of Barnsley and Leeds. I will take the opportu-
nity of illustrating the evils and absurdities of this sys-
tem. There are in Belfast extensive manufacturing and
spinning concerns for making linen yarn and linen cloth.
Those establishments in Belfast are brought into imme-
diate competition with my constituents in Barnsley and
Leeds. The labour in Belfast is cheaper than in York-
shire. Capital is quite as cheap. There is a slight dif-
ference in the price of coals. Yet my constituents in
Yorkshire are compelled to pay to Government three per
cent, on their profits ; and the hon. gentleman's con-
stituents engaged in the same trade are exempt from
that tax. (Cheers.) Is it not evident that my con-
stituents labour under a disadvantage in competing
with the constituents of the hon. gentleman ? And
since we have entered upon this discussion, I want to
put it to the honourable gentleman whether he will be
ready by-and-by to agree to the proposal which is, I be-
lieve, threatened by the honourable baronet the member
for Marylebone, to impose the same income tax in Ire-
land as in England ? (Hear. hear.) I leave that to the
hon. gentleman's consideration. With reference to the
question before the committee, some remarks were made
on Friday evening by hon. members who spoke before
my right hon. friend the member for Halifax, which
seemed to imply that somebody on this side of the house
objected to the budget because it contained additions to
direct taxation. The hon. baronet the member for
Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton) and the hon. member
for Cambridge (Mr. Balll threw out something like
taunts, that the Free-traders will be put to the test. It
will be seen whether they are ready to carry out their
principles now that we are all Free-traders. (Hear,
hear, from the Ministerialists.) I am prepared to an-
swer that challenge. I say, on the part of the Free-
traders, we do not object to direct taxation, where you
can show it is levied equally on all descriptions of pro
perty ; and, in the next place, where the object in
levying it is one beneficial to all the interests of the
country. (Hear, hear.) But we do not recognise any
grievance on the part of the hon. members opposite who
sit for agricultural districts. (Cheers.) We do not re-
cognise any claim on the party called Free-traders to
levy a tax upon some peculiar kind of property in towns
in order to relieve certain kinds of property, in the
country. (Hear, hear.) If that principle be adopted,
it will be just that one-sided, partial, and unjust system
which we have been struggling to get rid of for the last
fourteen years in abolishing the corn laws. (Cheers.)
It will be, in fact, adopting that odious principle—com-
pensation. (Hear, hear.) My first answer to those
taunts is, we do not recognise on the part of members
sitting for agricultural districts any grievance or loss
which entitles them to ask us to submit to taxes which
they do not pay themselves. (Hear.) The hon. baro-
net the member for Hertfordshire, said, "A great deal
depends on the way in which you grant relief. Now,
do it graciously ; even if you do not believe they are dis-
tressed, they think themselves distressed ; therefore,
give them something in the shape of a reduction of the
malt tax, which they will believe to be a relief, and will
console them." This is a sentimental way of dealing
with the question—(a laugh)—which Ido not under-
stand, because we are dealing with grave figures amount-
ing to millions. But I deny that the farmers are suffer-
ing that distress alleged by the right hon. baronet which
entitles them to come to this house and ask for relief.
I received a note the other day from one of the most
enterprising and intelligent farmers in the East Lothians,
which I will read to the house, and I believe it is not a
bad explanation of the condition of the farming world in
general. He says :—" The farmers of the Lothians of
Scotland, essentially a wheat district, never were, as a
body in a more flourishing condition, and the demand
for land in consequence is beyond all parallel for the
last thirty years. Every farm that is to let brings
an advanced rent of from 10 to 30 per cent. I have
four years of my lease to run, but have made a new
arrangement at an increased rent of 15 per cent., which
I begin to pay immediately, and I have always one-
fourth of my land in wheat. Two farms have been let in
this parish within the last six months at a similar ad-
vance to my own, and an adjoining farm, belonging to
the Marquis of Dalhousie, is at present to let, the factor
being in London with the offers in his pocket to show to
his lordship's commissioners ; and I know for a fact that
first-rate tenants, men of capital and skill, have offered
30 per cent. increase on the rent at which the farm was
let 19 years ago, when it was advertised for six months,
and then let to the highest bidder. My brother took a
farm last week adjoining the one on which he resides of
225 acres imperial, and for which he pays 20 per cent.
increase of rent. Sheep farms have brought higher
additional rents ; but I have said enough to show you
that any talk of agricultural distress is sheer nonsense,
and for myself, I have done and am doing as well as I
could possibly desire. One of the principal reasons for
this is, that where land is properly drained, by the liberal
use of guano and other artificial manures, the crops have
been increased one-half at least, and every acre is made
to carry as much corn as can stand. It costs me up-
wards of 7001. per annum for artificial manures, on a
farm of 650 imperial acres. I know several farmers
whose outlay, in proportion, is greater ; but then, in
ploroo or fray ouarters of wheat per acre, we have now
six or seven quarters, anti 6-raine
Proportion ;
while root crops are also much heavier, and their value
per ton is as great or greater than ever, thanks to the
numerous consumers of butcher's meat." I mention this
at the outset because I observe in one of the papers to-
day a letter, written, if not by a Cabinet Minister, by
the exponent of the opinions of the Ministry, in which he
states to his constituent that, although the Government
do not intend to propose protection, yet they do intend
to propose compensation, and this budget is the first step
towards compensation and the reduction of the malt tax,
as a measure for the relief of the land. Such being the
case, we are entering again upon the old controversy of
town and country—(cheers)—and you compel us to go
into this question in a spirit which I thought was never
to be revived. (Hear, hear.) If honourable gentlemen
opposite will carry out these principles, and reduce the
duty on soap, metals, and other articles, I shall be quite
ready to support them, provided they will substitute
direct taxation applicable to all kinds of property.
(Hear, hear.) I come now to my objection to the
scheme of the budget. It is not intended to levy an
equitable direct tax. (Hear.) I say this proposal of the
house tax is a most unjust proposal. (Hear, hear.) For
what do you propose to do? You have already levied
a property tax of 3 per cent. on lands and houses.
You then go to schedule A, and select houses for
an additional 9d., being 31 per cent., and making 61
per cent. on houses against 3 per cent. on land.
Then you want more money in order to carry out this
scheme of compensation, which I call a scheme of spolia-
tion—(cheers)—and you put on another 9d. to the duty
on houses, being another 31 per cent., and with the
former 6/ per cent., making 101 per cent. on houses as
against 3 per cent. levied on land. (Hear, hear.) But
that is not all, because we all know in valuing real pro-
perty for assessment you take houses at a much fewer
number of years' purchase than land. Whilst you
assess land at thirty years' purchase, you assess houses at
fifteen years' purchase ; yet you levy the same rate of taxa-
tion on both, and that is double the pressure on houses
to that on land. If you invest 1,000/. in houses, and
1,0001. in land, you are paying twice the amount of tax
on the capital invested in houses to that invested in land.
(Hear, hear.) Taking, therefore, the actual tax on
houses at 101 per cent., and that brings it to 21 per
cent., which you propose to lay on houses, as against 3
per cent. which you lay on land—(hear, hear)—l call
that an injustice which I think this house and tlds Go-
vernment will be exceedingly wrong to attempt ; because,

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

STANDING ORDERS.

THE INDISPUTABLE LIFE POLICY
COMPANY,
No. 72, Lombard-street, and 24, Connaught-terrace.

Mr. W. PATTEN moved that standing orders Nos.
59, 60, and 156 be repealed, aad that the following
orders be made standing orders in lieu thereof :-59.
That, excepting in the case of a railway bill, a sum not
lessthan one-twentieth part of the amount required to
be subscribed shall, previously to the 15th day of
January, be deposited with the Court of Chancery in
England, if the work is intended to be done in England ;
or with the Court of Chancery in England, or the Coilrt 91.
Exchequer in Scotland ; if such work is intended to be
done in Scotland; and with the Court of Chancegi
in Ireland, if such work is intended to be done in IrelanT.-
60. That in the case of railway bills, a sam not less Iran
one-tenth part of the amount required to be subscribed,
shall, previously to the:lsth.day of January, be Etepoinwr
with the Court of Chancery in England, if the rail'kva
ik
is intended to be made in England ; or with thp c
of Chancery in England or the Court of Exc ' ..
Scotland, if such railway is intended to be in
Scotland ; and with the Court of Chancery in N.lreland;:,
if such railway is intended to be made in Irelarkel. 156.'
That all'petitions praying that anyof the sessional.Pr AA-4i
ing orders of the house, relating to private bills, may
be dispensed with, and all pet;tions for the re-insertion
of petitions for private bills, n the general list of peti-
tions, and all petitions_lippising,the same, be *Anted
to this house by depositing the same in the private bill
office ; and every such petition, so deposited, shall stand
referred to the select committee on standing orders.
Agreed to.

TRUSTEES.
Richard Spooner, Esq., M.P. I Richard Malin, Esq., Q.C., M.P.
J. Campbell Renton, Esq., M.P. James Fuller Maddox, Esq.
William Wilberforce, Esq.
The POLICIES are INDISPUTABLE, in terms of the Deed of
Settlement of the Company. duly registered, and are thus rendered
CERTAIN FAMILY PROVISIONS, and NEGOTIABLE DOCU-
MENTS of SECURITY.
This Company has introduced, as more peculiarly- applicable to
the Middle and Industrious Classes, a plan of SELF-PROTECTING
INSURANCE, whereby in one Policy for one rate of Premium are
combined an Insurance of a Sum payable either at death or on
attaining a specified age, and a pension or annuity after that age ;
and giving the lull benefit of all Premiums that have been paid,
although the payments should at any time be discontinued.
ALEX. ROBERTSON, Manager.

UNITED KINGDOM LIFE ASSURANCE
COMPANY,

Established by Act of Parliament in 1834.
No. 8, Waterloo Place, Pall Mall, London.
The distinctive features of the Company
_embrace, amongs
others:.—
Tables of Premiums formed on the lowest scale compatible with
security, and constructed to meet the various wants of assurers,
and every risk to which protection by assurance can be extended.
One-half the Life Premium for the first Five years may remain on
credit.
Loans granted on approved Personal Security.
--
Assured not restricted in their limits of travel, as in most other
Companies, but may proceed from one part of Europe to another in
decked vessels, without License, and to British North America, and
many parts of the United States, without extra premium, by merely
giving the ordinary notice to the Office in London of the intended
visit.
Whole-world Policies granted at slightly increased rates of
Premium, thus rendering a Policy in money transactions a real
security.
Prospectuses, and every information, may be obtained upon appli-
cation to the Resident Director.

PETITIONS.
Petitions against the financial propositions of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer were presented by Sir W.
CLAY, from the Tower Hamlets ; Lord D. STUART,
from St. Pancras; and by several other hon. members
from other places.
Lord D. STUART presented a petition from Ken-
dal, praying that the Government remonstrate with the
authorities in Italy to allow the Bible to be read by the
people in that country ; also several p3titions from the
metropolis, praying for the interference of the house in
the case of Edward Murray.
Mr. PHINN presented a petition from a Mechanics'
Institute at Bath, praying for the transmission, at a
small cost, of Parliamentary reports to literary insti-
tutions.
Mr. MONSELL presented a similar petition from
Limerick.
Mr. COBDEN also presented a similar one from the
West Riding of Yorkshire.
Similar petitions were presented by Lord BARNARD
from Galway, and Mr. Loma fron Honiton.
Mr. 0. CONNOR HASTIE presented a petition
from Kildare, complaining of the 'nterference of Roman
Catholic clergy at the last election in Ireland, and
praying for the adoption of the ballot.
Mr. W. LOCKHART presented a petition from
Edinburgh against opening. tle Crystal Palace on
Sundays.
Mr. WILKINSON presented a petition from Mary-
lebone, praying for the interference of the Government
to obtain the liberation of Edwaxl. Murray.
Mr. HAYTER presented t petition from Wells
against the proposed increase of the house tax.
Mr. GRANVILLE BERKELEY presented a peti-
tion from Evesham, to the same effect.
Mr. ISAAC BUTT presented a petition from
Youghal, praying for an enquity into the interference
of the Roman Catholic.clergy at the last general election
, in Ireland.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
I Holborn Union against the recent order of the Poor-

POST OFFICE LONDON DIRECTORY.-
Now published, price 155., the smaller edition of the work for
1853, comprising Official Directory—Commercial (or general alpha-
betical) Directory—Court Directory—Parliamentary Directory—
Postal Directory—Banking Directory—all as in the complete edition
of the work. The "Official Directory," besides the copious list of
Government Offices, contains an alphabetical list of the names of
upwards of seven thousand persons holding situations under the
Crown, in the East India House, Bank of England, the various law,
city, and alt other rublic offices. The " Parliamentary Directory"
has the Peers, in their order of precedence, and alphabetically ; an
alphabetical list of the Members of the present House of Commons,
with their various offices, and a list of boroughs, cities, and counties,
with the members returned for them. The " Postal Directory" occu-
pies seventy-five pages, within which are detailed all the arrange-
ments of the General London and District Post, readily ascertainable
from the
ec Index prefixed to this division of the work. The " Bank-
ing Dirtory" has the banking establishments in London,and Irish,
Scotch, and Provincial Bankers, and Joint stock Banks. with their
branches and managers, and the amount of their bank note circu-
tion, &c., &c., &c.
The complete Post-Office London Directory for 1853 has, in addi-
tion to all the foregoing—Street Directory—Trades' Directory—Law
Directory, Conveyance Directory, with an amount of miscellaneous
information too voluminous for present detail, and as the work, in
addition to its General Index, has an Index to each of the important
divisions —" Street Directory," " Trades' Directory," "Law Direc-
tory,"" Official Directory," " Postal Directory," any required part of
the multifarious contents can be at once referred to without diffi-
culty.
For reviews (which will shortly be advertised in extenso) of the
complete Directory, see " Times," of the 4th; " Morning Chronicle"
and "Morning Herald," 3d; "Morning Advertiser," 6th; "Daily
News," 9th ; " Morning Post," 12th ; " Globe " and " Standard,"
sth ; " Sun," 4th ; " Shipping and Mercantile Gazette," 10th ; " Exa-
miner," "John Bull." "Spectator," " Economist," 6th ; " Weekly
Dispatch," 14th; "Sunday Times," 7th; "Hell's Weekly Mes-
senger" and " Atlas," 6th ; " Observer," 7th ; " Herapath's Railway
Journal," " Illustrated London News," and " Mining Journal." 6th ;
" Literary Gazette " and " Court Journal," 13th ;" Nonconformist,"
17th ; and " Weekly Times," 28th ult.
KELLY & Co., 20, Oldgloswell-court, Temple-bar ; and all booksellers.

.A.VESEND STAR
PACKETS,
No other Packets call at the Grays, Greenhithc, and Pi:tilled Piers
The Packets call at the Piers as underlined (weather permitting).
FROM TERRACE PIER, GRAVEs END .

Law Board.
Mr. TUFNELL presented a petition from Devonport
against the extension of the home tax.
MR. BOYD.
Mr. M. MILNES wished to asc. the Under Secretary of
is. State for Foreign Affairs, whetter any steps had been
taken by the intervention of his lepartment with foreign
governments to ascertain the fate of Mr. Benjaminßoyd,
supposed to have been murdered or held in captivity, on
landing at one of the Solomon islands in the latter part
of the last year, and whether there would be any objection
to lay such information as her Majesty's Government
might have received on the table of the house.
Lord STANLEY had no information to lay upon
the table because no information had been received, but
in reference to the first part of the question he
might perhaps be allowed to state that in the month
of June last a dispatch was written to our Minister at
Washington, requesting him to make application to the
American Government on the subject, and request them
to assist this country in obtaining information. Mr.
Webster, the then Secretary of State, promised to com-
ply with that request, and shortly afterwards a notice
was published in the newspapers of the States, requesting
any private individuals who might obtain information
connected with the fate of Mr. Boyd, to communicate
it to the American authorities. He was sorry, however,
to say, that up to the present moment no information
whatever had been received.
INCOME TAX.

SUNDAYB

WEER DAYS.

Time.

o 4

Mr. HEADLAM wished to ask the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a. question rela-
tive to the proposed reduction of the income tax. It
was proposed to reduce the incomes liable to the tax
in cases where the income was derived from
fixed and certain soirees from 50/., and those
derivable from industrial sources, to 1001. Now, sup-
posing a person to be in the receipt of 401. from realised
property, and 1001. from professional resources, would
he be exempted from payment of the tax, or would he
have to pay it upon the whole 1201. ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was extremely inconvenient to enter into such questions
then. It would be much better to leave it for the Mi-
nister to state his details when the proper time arrived
for doing so.

[PRICE 5D .

7/,/

/se,z,)

•
come tax, I think that this part of the subject reflects
great credit on the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. lam bound to say that it is remark-
able that aGovernment, representing territorial interests,
should deal fairly with the income tax, at least in prin-
ciple, when applied to trades and professions. Most
assuredly that proposition ought to have come from this
side of the house. (Hear, hear.) I say, in spite of all
that mathematicians or philosophers may say to the con-
trary, that you must either vary the tax on income, and
make it less than the tax levied on property, or you'
must capitalise income and treat it as capital. You
must make a difference between the income derived from
the midnight labours of the physician or the lawyer, and
an income drawn from the funds. I give the Govern-
ment, therefore, full credit for this alteration, and, whe-
ther they are destined to carry it out or not, it must be
carried out by some Government. But, see how strange
it is, that in dealing with this question the old curse of
the party has clung to them. (Hear, hear.) What a
paltry thing it is to make such an alteration as this
budget presents to conciliate the tenant farmers. You
propose to assess the tenant farmer on one-third of his
rental, instead of one-half as heretofore. In the time of
Mr. Pitt he was assessed at three-fourths of his rental.
Sir Robert Peel reduced the assessment to one-half, and
now you propose to reduce it to one-third. Now, I will
put it to the right hon. gentleman, does he think that
farming would be worth following as a trade if the
tenant farmer made an income equal only to one-third of
his rent, that income being derived from the application
of his capital, directed by his own skill and industry ?
Would it not be more fair to say that one rent goes to
the tenant ? Then, again, with regard to the extension
of the income tax. How does this act in the case of the
tenant farmer ? You propose to extend the area of the
income tax, so as to include income derived from real
property from 501. upwards, and from 1001. upwards in
trades and professions. As a principle, I have no ob-
jection to the extension of the area of direct taxation.
If you carry out that principle as you do in local taxa-
tion, you must levy on every description of property, and
on every amount, and the only thing that embarrasses
us in carrying out direct taxation for general purposes is,
that we have such an amount of indirect taxation pressing
on the labouring classes that it gives them a claim to ex-
emption from direct taxation. There is no other objection
to this system of taxation being universal. Well, you pro-
pose to extend the operation of the income tax to incomes
of 501. a year derived from real property, and to incomes
of 1001. a year arising out of trades and. professions.
But see how the system works with regard to the tenant
farmers. Here is a farmer with 250 acres of moderate
land, for which he pays a rent of 2801. a year. By your
act all rentals under 3001. a year are exempt from taxa-
tion altogether. If that man farms as he ought to do,
and as he must do, in free-trade times, he must have froth
2,0001. to 3,0001. of capital ; in fact, 10/. an acre is not
as much as he ought to have ; he would do better with
121. or 151. an acre. Here, however, is a man with
2,800/. of capital, and you assume that he is not worth
1001. a year. (Hear, hear.) Well, this farmer rides
into the market town on a good horse, in good health
and spirits, and as he is going to market he passes a law-
yer's clerk who has an income of 1001. a year. You tax
the lawyer's clerk 51d. in the pound on every penny of
his salary, while the farmer, who has 2,8001. capital,
with a good farm house and steading, and who employs
a great number of labourers, escapes the income tax al-
together. Do you think that that will last ? If the
farmers are like the rest of their countrymen they will
not thank you for putting them in such an invidious po-
sition. By your law you are widening the operation of
the income tax, so as to embrace a great number of per-
sons who were not included in it before, but with respect
to the tenant farmers you have taken care that you will
not include any of that class whom the income tax did
not affect formerly. You embrace a great number of
small tradesmen who have hitherto been exempted from
the operation of the tax, but not one tenant farmer who
was not affected by it. Now, where can be the advantage
of this ? Is it worthy of the territorial party, and do
they seek to secure the tenant farmers in their interests
by holding out such a boon. I would ask the farmers
whether they have not had enough of this sort of thing,
and what they have got for it ? What is the use of their
being a different party from the rest of their countrymen,
and being made political capital of ? Have they not
been bamboozled enough already ? Sir, Ido hope that
this part of the Budget will be modified, and that the
tenant farmers will be placed on an equal footing with
the rest of their fellow-subjects. You say that the far-
mers do not keep books, and that they do not know
what they make in the course of the year. Then here
is a very good. occasion for compelling them to keep
books. (Hear, hear.) You cannot do the farmers a
greater service than by compelling them to keep books,
and thus ascertain how much profit they get from their
farms every year. I must say that I did not expect on
this occasion to hear this old grievance revived. I thought
that as the Chancellor of the Exchequerhad thrown over
local burdens, we were going to get rid of this controversy
altogether ; but it seems as if hon. gentlemen opposite
do not even yet understand their own position or what
free trade means. They have confounded two questions
which are essentially distinct—namely, the question of
protective duties and of direct taxation. Will they ex-
cuse me if, as an old professor, I show them a little of
their ABC in this matter I I see the hon. member for
Cambridgeshire there, who has not been accustomed to
free trade speeches. The advocates of free trade have
not necessarily been the advocates of direct taxation.
We have opposed protective duties because we wished
to have freedom of exchange with other countries, but
we did not inquire what would be the effect on prices.
We want as great a quantity of things as we can get,
but I am sure that the hon. member for Cambridgeshire
has shed tears—(a laugh)—on the supposition that we
free traders want low prices. But what we really want
is an abundance of everything. We do not say that
free trade will decrease prices. It is possible that both
the quantity and the price may be increased. The con-
dition of a country may be so prosperous, that, with an
augmented quantity of articles produced, an increased
price is obtained for them. That has been the case with
some articles, such as wool and meat, and we do not
know what will be the effect on corn itself. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer framed his budget, as it would
seem, to compensate the industrious classes for the ef-
fects of unrestricted competition ; but what necessity
was there for this step I I have always understood that
the industrious classes have been prosperous since free
trade was established. We say that it has already done
them much good, and that it will confer upon them still
greater benefits. But the Chancellor of the E
ucexchequereat
r
comes and tells us that he is going to introd g
measures, and that he will cheapen the necessaries of
life. He says, " I will reduce the price of beer, and I
will do so by raising the price of lodging." (A laugh.)
But is not lodging as great a necessary of life as beer ?
If you are to compete with foreigners, I say that you
are going the wrong way if you lower the price of beer
and raise the price of lodgings. The people of this
country are not coming to sue in forma pauperis for such
a boon. Why, then, do you make such a proposal It
is a thing of your own creating ; you have made pro-
mise that you never ought to have made, and that has
placed you in a false position. But I want to prevent
you from putting free trade in a false position. (Hear,
hear.) We say that we have done everything with free
trade, that we have greatly increased the comforts of
the labouring population, and diminished pauperism,
and then you come and give a new name to our princi-
ple, and call it "unrestricted competition." Lord Byron
used to say that a man had a right to pronounce his
own name as he pleased ; and in the same way, Ithpree-
sume, that a political party has a right tover insulted you
e ir
own name to their own principle. Ine
by calling you monopolists when you called yourselves
protectionists—(laughter)—and why should you come
now and change our good Saxon words " free trade"
into " unrestricted competition 1" How can we pos-
sibly call ourselves the "unrestricted competition
party ? (Renewed laughter.) If you adopt our prin-
ciples, adopt our name and all. With regard to the tea
duties, I think I should have done the same thing which
the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to do
(with the trifling difference between us of a penny a
pound) at least four or five years ago, and I do not be-
lieve that the revenue would have suffered at all by it.
Looking, however, at the budget as a whole, I cannot
persuade myself that this budget is the production of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that at the last
moment it was so pared down, and snipped,
and squabbled about, that almost every
.good thing, and
every bold thing was cut out of it. It is not worthy odf
a five hours' speech, and I humbly conceive that I could
have done it in an hour and twenty-five minutes-
and cobbled,
laugh.) Before I sit down I wish to add a
serious
awtoteu.
on a matter which must soon engage the er
tion of every thinking man. Ido think st
veryh te
wseoohna—ve
begun a controversy which will not end
The hon. member
namely, who is to pay the taxes ?
that I had declared
for West Surrey said Gee ethei: day
thatmen merits
shwe taouxldesnNovtoubledinnoaitnbtaeinpsetaildldi,, anNdvitthhatroeurdestatbo our
but as to paying the
establishments, people. of. Engs-
establishments, I think
debts, though my opinion has
land would pay their just
taxes, I have al war thought goht t h a.t
than they have d scrutinize
expenditure more closely one, Now,
also been that with direct taxation they would
however, that we arebeginning to have a controversy
about who is to pay the taxes, we shall find. that our
imperial expenditure, including the cost of collection, is
nearly 60,000,000/. This sum is very nearly as large as
the amount of real property which is assessed to the
income tax. You may well imagine, therefore, that
people will be crying out when they find themselves
galled by some particular tax.
Since I have b
this house I have seen a sheet ofpaper' used
for
n an
American newspaper, made out of straw, and printed
dry. Now, the raw material of this kind of paper costs
two guineas, but the duty upon it would be fourteen
guineas. He says that but for this excise we could have
this straw paper manufactured quite as well here as in
America. Then there is the soap tax. If any agitation
should. arise against it could it not be put in argument,
and would it not shame any man of property into willing-
ness to pay a little extra, that he lived in a country
where dirt was made a premium by act of Parliament ?
(Hear.) Take also the insurance tax. As these be-
come discussed you will find more and more the neces-
sity of resorting to some other mode of taxat
withion.
foreign
It is
not merely that the competition is great
countries, but the changed habits of business render a
continuance of the present system impossible ; the greater
velocity and the greater magnude of business render it
impossible. Now, as regard t ithe Customs' duties, you
have two great blue-books or more on the inconveni-
ences of the present Custom-house regulations ; but any
man that gets to the bottom of the question must know
that you cannot get to the end of the difficulty except
by abolishing custom-houses altogether. (Hear, hear.)
Take Sir R. Peel's reductions. Sir R. Peel abolished
the duties on hundreds of articles, and thought probably
that in so doing he should lessen the Custom-house ex-
penses. But, no ; it is necessary to examine articles
that come in free. Suppose you allowed your own cotton
bales to come in from America without examination,
how 11004 Wad they -be tobacco Well I Now, 106 k 4

if you succeed—l suppose you will carry it by a ma-
jority—do you think you will ever maintain it? (Loud
cheers.) Do you think the intelligent people of the
towns, those centres from which radiate the intelligence
of this country. (Oh ! from the Government side.)
Well ! I take, you derive your literature and science
from towns. I have never heard of going into country
hamlets to find them. (Cheers.) You cannot expect
this will be submitted to. If you pass such a law it will
be the worst thing that can happen to you, because it
will revive this controversy between town and country,
not in the old form, that you can say it is a contest be-
tween cotton lords and landlords, but as a contest in
which every little market town will be taking sides
against you. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Look also at
the way in which your taxation will operate to the pre-
judice of house property as distinguished from property
in land. I think it most likely that this, as well as every
other tax, will ultimately be felt, more or less, by every-
body ; but you must bear in mind that, with respect to
a great portion of house property, you are taxing the
owners as well as the occupiers, because a large propor-
tion of the houses which are occupied, are dwelt in by
their owners. See how this will work. You have spring-
ing up in all directions benefit building societies, which
are especially formed by industrious artisans, who seek
to have a house of their own, and who are likely to build
101. houses, because there exists among that class a
laudable desire of improving their dwellings. What kind
of justice is it that you will mete out to these men by
your taxation, when you demand from them 21 per
cent., and force them to compare their situation with
that of the owners of large landed estates ? Take
another case. There is in London a large amount
of lauded property owned by noblemen who let
out their vast landed estates on building leases. There
is the Belgrave-square property, for instance. This
property is let on a building lease for ninety-nine years,
at a ground rent for each house of about 501. a year. A
person puts bricks and mortar upon the land, or buys
the lease,' and you come to the owner of this property,
and call upon him to contribute to your house tax, but
you do not touch the ground landlord, though he clears
20,000/. or 30,0001. a year from the estate. The owners
of bricks and mortar you consider subjects for direct
taxation, but not the owners of land. It must be borne
in mind, besides, that the inhabitants of towns are sub-
jected to very heavy local charges, not only for the sup-
port of the poor, but for the police rate, the lighting
rate, and other ocal liabilities, yet although house pro-
perty is of smaller value than property in land, you
press upon the owner of house property with equal
severity for local rates, so that he is rated much higher
than the owner of landed property for local as well as
general purposes. You must not expect, therefore, that
such an unequal system of taxation as this can ever be
carried out. And what is this unequal tax laid on for ?
Why, to enable the Government to take off half the
malt tax. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster has stated, with his usual frank-
ness, what the object of the Government is in reducing
that tax. He says that it is to be taken off for the bene-
fit of the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told
us, however, that the moiety of the tax was to be taken
off for the interest of the consumer. I think the Go-
vernment would do well to come to an understanding
upon the principles of their budget, or, if they cannot
agree, it would be well if one party or the other could
be silent. (A laugh.) Now, my idea of the malt tax
is very much that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is a tax laid on the consumer, but there is no doubt
that the producer is subjected' to inconvenience and to
loss by it. The case of printed cottons, which was re-
ferred to by the right hon. gentleman, is precisely ana-
lagous. The duty fell upon the consumer, but it hamp-
ered the manufacturer in his business. I agree, there-
fore, that the producer of barldy, though to a very small
extent comparatively, is affected by the malt tax. I
have always understood that the great grievance of an
excise tax is its interference with the necessary opera-
tions of trade. The malt tax does not interfere much
with the farmers, yet still in a certain way it does. The
only interest I ever took in the malt tax was owing to
what I learned from a practical farmer and free trader,
Mr. Lattimore, of Berkhampstead, in Hertfordshire,
who is looked upon as a model farmer by his neighbours,
and he persuaded me that the malt tax ought to be re-
pealed whenever it was practicable, because the repeal
would enable the farmers to feed their cattle with malt.
How far that may be the case I do not know myself,
but I have confidence in Mr. Lattimore's judgment, and
I have always felt that since the corn laws were abolished,
the claim of the farmers to a repeal of the malt tax
rested upon their right to malt their barley for the
purpose of feeding their cattle. A case is made out,
therefore, for the repeal of the malt tax whenever you
have a sufficient surplus. But I have always said that
I would not be a party to imposing any substitute for
that tax. I have always been opposed, on principle, to
the taking off of half the malt tax, because I object to
the taking off of half of any excise tax, and I further
object to the way in which you are going to make up
the deficiency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has
said that beer, like bread, is a necessary of life—that it
must be drunk in order to keep up health and strength.
There is, however, a very wide difference of opinion on
this subject. I have always considered that one of the
difficulties which you would have to deal with in repeal-
ing the malt tax was, that there is a large growing body
of people in this country, and some of them very fana-
tical, too, who say that not only is beer not a necessary
of life, but that it is highly pernicious. (Hear, hear.) T
can cite the authority of a very large and influential and
very useful class of persons who are of the same opinion,
and I will read a declaration to this effect ; but I must
request that hon. members opposite will suppress any
manifestation of feeling until I have read to the end of
the document : "An opinion handed down from rude
and ignorant times, and imbibed by Englishmen from
their youth, has become very general, that the habitual
use of some portion of alcoholic drink, as of wine, beer,
or spirit, is beneficial to health, and even necessary to
those subjected to habitual labour. Anatomy, physi-
ology, and the experience of all ages and countries, when
properly examined, must satisfy every mind 'well in-
formed in medical science that the above opinion is alto-
gether erroneous. Man, in ordinary health, like other
animals, requires not any such stimulant, and cannot be
benefited by the habitual employment of any quantity of
them, large or small ; nor will their use during his life-
time increase the aggregate amount of his labour. In
whatever quantity they are employed they will rather
tend to diminish it." This declaration is signed by 70 of
the most eminent medical men in this metropolis, in-
cluding Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Chambers, Sir James
Clark, Mr. Bransby Cooper, Mr. Travers, and others.
Now I think that declaration may, at all events, have
sufficient weight with this house to justify me in saying
that it is at least an open question whether beer be a
necessary of life or not. You ask, however, the profes-
sors of temperance to tax themselves in order to relieve
the country from one-half of the malt tax. I have re-
ceived many letters from my constituents who are tee-
totallers on this subject. They say that they have
abolished the use of alcoholic liquors among themselves,
and that they believe the consumption of malt is perni-
cious to society ; and yet you ask them to submit to a
house tax, in order that beer may be cheaper, and that,
consequently, a greater consumption of beer may take
place. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman has put the
matter in such a way as to make the reduction of the
malt tax a grievance to all these persons. He has not
put the restriction of the duty on scientific grounds, as
a skilful political economist would have done, on the
ground, namely, that the farmers had a right to malt
their barley for the purpose of fattening their cattle.
the right hon. gentleman had done so, the sympath!es
which my constituents felt for free trade would have in-
duced them to acquiesce in the proposal at once, but the
Government said that the object of the reduction was to
cheapen beer to the consumer. My objection to the
house tax, therefore, is twofold ; first, that it is a partial
tax, and next, that a great number of people are indif-
ferent to a reduction of the malt tax, while thousands,
and I believe even hundreds of thousands, are opposed on
principle to the reduction of the duty on that article.
That being the case, although I do not know what a
majority of ilio house may do, I am sure that you will
not be able to maintain the house boa., If YOU are
able to lay it on. You have seen how long-lived a con-
test may be when the object is to get rid of an unpopu-
lar tax. Look at the window tax, for instance : and
yet you are going to enter into a contest in which you
are sure to be. beaten, and on a matter, too, which is
really not worth fighting for. I have now a word or
two to say about the proposed alteration in the hop
duty. I have had much talk with the hop-growers of
Sussex on this subject; and when they have told me that
they wanted a total repeal of the duty, but that the hop-
growers of Kent were for taking off half the duty only,
I have said, " After the great works of Sir Robert Peel,
we shall never have a peddling Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer who will make two bites of a cherry and take
"
off half the hop duty. (Laughter and cheers.) Here
you have a tax which is perfectly exceptional in its cha-
racter—a tax which is worthy of Turkey or Persia, but,
which is ridiculous in Great Britain. In the spring of
the year there are a number of unfortunate Papirtg°annsa
needy men, who come to members of Parliam
say—" Will you recommend me to the Gove
collector of the hop duties ?"
Well, whepicked, the
comes, and the hops are dry and ready
t°
army of
Chancellor of the Exchequer disperses a
they go and take
n rnSnee;tnetmasbear
these collectors over the country,
makeand an estimate of
stock of the fields and gardens,
the tax.
broltuhsasalaildi
-0 Chancellor of the Ex-
citomhaersloay n2edovoe,rocoooml.e,
500,0001.sstoometiest o
It is an uncertain tax, and n
300,0001. oSrom 40e0t,in100(11i. t;
the evils which a tax can av •
Ex-
chequer knows how to calculate theltamisoucnutm.
costly in collection, it is uncertain in amount, and it
I pressure on different
parts
bears with most unequal
of the country. (Cheers.) There are some districts
where the hops are hardly worth half the amount
of the tax, and, as the duty is levied by weight,
it falls with the greatest pressure on the poorest
soils. It is inconceivable, therefore, that any Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, after the repeal of the corn laws
and the abrogation of the navigation laws, should think
of taking off half the duty on hops. I hope the house
will mover condescend to such paltry trifling as this. If
nobody else does so, I will myself move the total repeal
of the hop duty ; and if I should be defeated on that
motion, I will vote against the partial repeal, for an ex-
cise tax of this kind should be abolished altogether or
not at all. With respect to the modifications of the in-

~~t _