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

THE
_SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER ii

decision and settlement of the matter, and he believed it
would be a great boon to the country if they could settle
this question at once. He thought the hon. member for
Lambeth (Mr. Williams) was perfectly right to take a
division on his amendment, and, for his own part, he
could only say he would be glad to see the matter decided.
He believed there would be abundant money found by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the wants of the
country, and he (Mr. Hudson) thought that, by supporting
the Government on this question, he would meet the views
of eight, or, at all events, of ten commercial men out of
twelve. (Hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS said, with regard to his own proposi-
tion, he would willingly accede to the suggestion of the hon.
member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) and other hon. mem-
bers on that side of the house, that a distinct vote should
be taken, apart from all other questions on the house tax.
He should be extremely sorry if, by any misunderstanding
caused by him, he should risk the loss of a single vote
against the house tax ; therefore, he would withdraw his
motion for the present, with the understanding that he
would take the earliest opportunity to bring it on again.
(Hear.)
The amendment of the hon. member for Lambeth was
then withdrawn, and the original question on the house
tax read by the tHAIRMAN.
Mr. MINN said he would not venture to trouble the
house with any observations of his at that time, only that,
representing as he did a large and important constituency
(Bath), who had confided to him, though a lawyer, the
honour of representing their wishes and views, he thought
it his duty—disregarding his own private feelings—to ex-
press their views and wishes upon this most important and
momentous question. (Hear.) It was his wish to give the
Government a fair support in any measures calculated to
advance the commercial prosperity of the country, and it
was in no factious spirit he felt bound to give his most de-
termined opposition to the question then before the house.
His reason for doing so was this, that the increased house
tax was a tax not called for by the exigencies of the coun-
try, and that it would inflict a twofold evil—first, that
his constituents felt it would operate unfairly and un-
justly upon them, and, secondly, that in it they felt their
political existence involved, for they looked upon this mea-
sure as a measure of disfranchisement. (Hear, and "Oh.")
Whatever might be said—whatever sneers might be cast
forth upon the class who were called the 101. householders
—he (Mr. Phinn) could say he never yet knew them back-
ward in coming forward—(loud laughter)—he never found
them backward in their willingness to bear their fair pro-
portion of taxation. He had never heard any murmurs on
the part of that class, except against unjust or extravagant
taxation. Therefore, he said their voice was entitled to
be heard on this momentous question. He would confine
himself to that particular question, as the one which
would'press most severely upon his question, were it not
that it was so mixed up with the other questions of the
budget, that it was impossible to discuss it separately.
When the Government proposed to impose a new tax, the
subject was entitled to ask, what was the public burden or
political exigency that required it—were you carrying on
an expensive war, or was there any deficiency in the Ex-
chequer ?He apprehended none of those existed—it was a
mere question of shifting the burdens of taxation—a mere
question whether one class was to be relieved at the ex-
pense of another—a question whether the poor and strag-
gling class were to have added to them a new burden of
taxation, or whether those who were comparatively well
off were to be relieved of their fair share of taxation.
When Parliament was convoked, he (Mr. Phinn) expected
from the large promises held forth, and the trumpet-
ings of the Government organs, there would be some at-
tempt made to lay down some plain and intelligible prin-
ciples of taxation. They were told that the Government
now in power would be able to provide for all the wants of
the State in a manner that would meet with universal ap-
plause. He thought the right hon. gentleman (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer), in his researches in financial
science, had discovered something that had baffled the
genius of Pitt, and escaped the sagacity of Peel ; but he
found no such principles enunciated, no great problem
solved. Nor had he heard that problem solved, if we were
to have a system of direct and indirect taxation combined,
in what proportion was it to be imposed ; and there was
not, he should say, in the whole range of political science
a question of greater importance than that—how far one
was to be vigorously enforcedoand how far the other was
to be judiciously moderated. There was another problem
which he had hoped would be solved : that was this—
whether we ought to reduce the duties on articles of excise
or articles of customs, and whether it would not be better,
considering the impediments which the excise throws in
the way of both producer and consumer, its domiciliary
visits, and minute details, which are so distasteful to the
habits and feelings of Englishmen, to get rid of it.
(Hear, hear.) But he complained that the great
fault of the budget was, that it laid down no new
rules to correct the abuses of our commercial policy,
but left the old difficulties still untouched, still unsolved,
and contained no guiding principle. (Hear, hear.) With
much of the right hon. gentleman's system he was disposed
to concur, because it met the views of those on that (the
Opposition) side of the house, who always said to those
classes who were told at every market table and commercial
assembly—the West Indian and agricultural interests—
that they had great grievances which the right hon. gentle-
man (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would redress—
who said to them that when the right hon. gentleman
came into power they would be deceived, and now they
(the Opposition) found they were correct, and had told
those classes truly. With regard to the income tax, he
(Mr. Phinn) quite agreed with the right hon. gentleman,
that if he took off the income and property tax together, he
must put a proportion of income tax upon property. But
agreeing with him in many of his propositions, he (Mr.
Phinn) could not agree to the taking off of the malt tax.
That was a proposition to take off a tax and yet leave the
same restrictions, the same control over the farmer, and
yet leave all the evils of collecting. He believed the ex-
pense of collecting the malt tax would be six per cent.
on the amount collected—(hear, hear)—and the reduction
would not benefit the consumer a farthing a quart on
his beer, so that the benefit would go principally into the
pockets of the great monsters, the great brewers, and the
publicans, and very little of it indeed to the labouring
classes. (Hear.) With regard to the propositions of the
right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as
to the tea duties, it appeared we were to have a reversal of
that policy which the late Sir Robert Peel proclaimed, that
in estimating what parties were to contribute by direct
taxation, we were to consider what classes were to be
relieved, and those classes were divided into three by
that great statesman, viz., the labourer, those in humble
situations, such as clerks, and those who, having realised
by their exertions a small property, had been accustomed
to look upon it as a means of retiring in their old age. All
this was now to be reversed, and in a double way ; because,
if a
_person had 1451. a-year, and his house cost him 151.
or Mk a-year, he would have to pay two taxes from which
he was hitherto free. It had been said of the house tax that
it was good of itself, He (Mr. Phinn) agreed that it was,
if we treated it as an income tax • but if we did so, what
was the use of a house tax, for that only an income tax
in another shape, and the worst of it was, it did not compass
the ends proposed by it. If we took a scale, say of men pos-
sessing incomes from 10,0001. a-year clown to 1501. or 1001.,
we would find that the man of 10,0001. a year would not
pay above 5 per cent. in his rent, as he did not suppose
that any man of that income would live in a house above
5001. a year rent, at least in London. If we then came to
a man with 1,0001. a year, his rent would not probably ex-
ceed 100/. per annum; but when we come down to their
having only 100/. or 1501. a year, they would have to pay
15 or per cent. upon their income. Therefore, he said,
this measure was an injustice upon the poor—therefore,
he said it was, as a house tax, not graduated, more unjust
than an income tax. (Hear, hear.) He had
said his con-
stituents considered this as a disfranchising bill. (Hear,
and cheers.) Out of the 920,000 electors in all England,,
there were about 320,000 living in houses of between 101.
and 151. a year rent. He asked any gentleman, did he not
believe that, if this measure became law, the tenants would
not ask their landlords to make the rent 91. 18s., to escape
paying 15s. house tax—a serious sum to a poor man—and
would not the tenant thereby forfeit his vote?—for the first
question the revising barrister would ask him at the regis-
tration was, did hepaythe house tax? and if he did not, that
would be conclusive evideneeagainst him, and he wouldhave
no vote. (Hear, hear.) It struck him (Mr. Phinn), and it
struck his constituents, that this was a measure conceived
in a double sense. They were told that the propositions
of the Government were twofold ; first, to settle our com-
mercial policy ; and, secondly, to restrain the democracy.
He believed the Government were now trying, by this
measure, to disqualify those who were most opposed to
them, and who constituted the strength of their oppo-
nents ; and to that extent, he believed, if this measure
passed, it would be successful. (Hear.) If this measure
passed, there would be an agitation by the 101. house-
holders, who would be joined by the great body of the
masses, and the country would have to thank the Conser-
vative Government for all this. (Hear.)
Mr. E. BALL thought the hon. member who had just
sat clown, though being a professional gentleman, had not
carried out his arguments with that clearness which might
have been expected from him. The hon. and learned mem-
ber had stated that this measure, if passed, would be
the means of disfranchising a large body of his constituents
—the 101. householders—and then, to prove that it would
be so, he said they had always been most willing to pay
their fair share of taxation. (Hear, hear, hear.) If that
be the case, how was it possible they could be disfran-

chised, when they were only required to pay a proportion
of that which was as clearly due from them as from any
other portion of the public ? Why were they to ask to be
exempted from that which all other classes paid ? Why,
if they were to have the privilege of sharing in the election
of representatives, should they ask to be exempt from their
heretofore,
in the taxation ? And if, as had been the argument
!leretofore, that those who paid taxes should have a share
in electing the representatives, why was it, now that they
nieYeki that privilege, that they should ask to be exempt
trryei;i their fair contribution to the taxation of their coun-
tax - (Rear-) Hon. gentlemen declaimed about the malt
Iner!s if its reduction was solely for the benefit of the fart
the maitat!: it no advantage to the consumer of beer, or of
those who r, or the brewer?—or was it no advantage to
the inhatutaneZ large consumers of malt, who were chiefly
farmer, eortainr the great towns (Hear, hear.) The
to have had the TeeTtould have been much more gratified
tax entirely repealed--(hear, hear)—
from which a double
that of cheapening ottivertage would have been gained—
as
getting rid of all the to a considerable extent, as well
hear.) The consumer expense of collecting the tax. (Hear,
the present proposition. 1 rreive the greatest benefit of
tie se first place, the grower of
malt in this country was to
sub to competition with
the foreigner for the first time
.was subject, also, to a
great number of restrictions fro' wlll
be free, and both these circumstances the foreigner would
for the benefit of the consumer,
all malt t
dertild work entirely
sure very few hon. gentlemen were aware of exoHrbeitawnats
urities whieh were required from
ing to double the value of what they 3 el's, amount-
manufactured. One
only fthemost extensive maltsters in the country had to . e
Id him,
only a few days before, that he had to find bondsmen to
the amount of 50,0001.. The farmers had always been lm
to expect some relief with respect to the highways count
and poor's rates ; not that they knew exactly how it was t;
come, but, somehow, everybody was to pay less, and the
total was to be greater. -
(Laughter from the Opposition)
They had expected that thee Chancellor of the Exche-
quer would do something for them in that way ; they
believed that that right hon. gentleman had some leaven
of comprehension beyond other men, that by the exercising
of his magician's wand he would be able to do something
to relieve them. (Renewed laughter.) They certainly
had looked for more than, according to appearances, they
were to get ; but, did they therefore come forward to
complain ? No, though they had every reason ; though the
proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the bud-
et was quite as much a boon to the other side of the house
as i t was to them, they had not attempted to thwart the
right hon. gentleman ; and, so far as he (Mr. Ball) was "'ll-
e erned ho never would advise his constituents to do so.
I t was his firm conviction, after carefully going through and
considering the budget of the right hon, gentleman, that

the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward a
scheme which showed itself to be the concoction of a Minis-
ter, not of a party, but of his country. (Cheers.) It was
a fair, equal, and just scheme, and bestowed upon all
parties alike benefits greater than the inconveniences
which it might entail. He should vote for the whole of it
taken together • but, certainly, if any attempts were made
to subtract certain parts from it, and to leave only those
which were beneficial to certain classes, he should oppose
them. As a whole, he repeated, he was prepared to accept
it, as the best thing he could get, though he certainly had
expected more. (Laughter.) Hon. gentlemen must remem-
ber that he had entered that house determined to fight to
the last for protection, but soon seeing that it was impos-
sible to get it, and feeling convinced that so long as
the house continued as it was, protection was done
with, he had made up his mind to be an honest free trader.
Protection was destroyed; and now he said, let us have
free trade. He was for taking off the duties upon metals
and manufactures of all sorts, in fact to carry out free
trade thoroughly ; and he would ask hon. gentlemen op-
positewiHtehhthadeirliostewnnefdn,enhdsedwidetailit
somewrth
the farmers. to
.dealr
s
surprise to that part of the very able and clear statement
as
confessed, they
ha
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he stated that
the importation of sugar this year had surpassed that of
every other previous year. That was followed up by the
statement of the hon. member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson)
the other night, that the colonies were in a more flourish.
ing state than ever they had been before 1846. Why, if
there was a subject on which he (Mr. Ball) thought he was
clear and certain, it was with regard to the total rain and
destruction of the colonies. His opinion on this point had
been confirmed by accounts which he had had from mis-
sionaries, with many of whom—eye-witnesses of what they
related—he had conversed, and who all bore testimony to
the deplorable state of things now existing in our West
India colonies. In conclusion, believing that the scheme
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would produce much
greater benefits than he had ventured to prophesy from it,
and hoping that the time would soon arrive when he would
be able to come forward and repeal the other half of the
malt tax, he should certainly support it.
Mr. M. MILNES said he was sure that honourable gen-
tlemen on that side of the house would receive with great
pleasure the adhesion of the honourable gentleman who
had just sat down, and would receive him into their ranks
as an honest free trader for ever. (Hear, hear.) With re-
spect to the subject before the house, he believed they were
perfectly right in considering the budget as a whole, be-
cause, if it were separated into its different parts, they
would be so unreasonable as scarcely to be able to come
under the discussion of the house. The income tax, how-
ever, did seem to him to stand somewhat separated from
the rest of the:budget, inasmuch as it appeared to be the
opinion of the country that it should not, for the present
at least, be disturbed. The question before the house to-
night was the combination of the repeal of the malt duties
and the increase of the house tax, because, if these two
points were fairly disposed of, he did not anticipate that
there would be much difficulty in dealing with the rest of
the budget. With regard, then, to the proposition imme-
liately before them, he believed that, if there had been
a studied desire to re-open the contest between town
and country, it could not have been more effectually
carried out than by this budget. The class which they
would provoke to action in the towns by this tax was the
class which was most active in the repeal of the corn laws—
which believed that it carried that repeal—and which
would, therefore, regard the imposition of this tax as an act
of revenge on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. He
knew very well that that was a consideration which would
never present itself to a Government framing a financial
proposition ; but he was certain that in that light it would
be regarded by many persons throughout the country.
(Hear, hear.) He really must say that in his opinion the
measures of the Government imposed upon those who be-
longed to the landed interest of the country a restraint
rather than a substantial advantage. (Hear, hear.) It
struck him that the case of the consumers had been dragged
into the discussion in a very subsidiary manner; for of
course it was beyond a doubt that the consuming classes
were always advantaged more or less by every reduction
of taxation, The question, however, which the house
had to consider was, whether the advantage derived
by the consumer was commensurate with the great sa-
crifice of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had proposed. In the case of the repeal of the corn
laws, the voice of the country had fully declared that the
benefit conferred thereby on the consumer entirely compen-
sated for any sacrifice which had been made. That point
was certainly at one time a matter of controversy, but hap-
pily it was now no longer so. If, indeed, hon. gentlemen
were to argue that every advantage derived by the con-
sumer was commensurate with any disadvantage that might
at the same time accrue to the country, it would be to force
a conclusion utterly untenable. As regarded the repeal of
the malt tax, he, for one, must say that he was very far
from regarding it with favour. Even supposing that its
effect was to cheapen beer, it should be borne in mind that
a very large portion of the people were totally unaccus-
tomed, upon conscientious grounds, to the use of fermented
liquors. Indeed, the article of beer was already so cheap
that it had been brought into a very general consumption;
and, in his opinion, the reduction of the malt duties would
only have the effect of enabling those who already consumed
that article to partake more largely of it, rather than
increase the number of those who drank it. (Hear,
hear.) And this, he must say, he did not deem a very de-
sirable object, for the house was well aware of the very
great misery already caused in large towns by the very large
consumption of that beverage. The Government had no
right to hold that beer was an article of primary necessity,
in the same way that that term had been applied to the use
of tea, coffee, or bread. (Hear.) It appeared to him (Mr.
Milnes) that a very grave question was involved in the dis-
cussion they were then engaged in—a question the import-
ance of which might be felt for years to come upon the
destinies of this country—it was the question of the com-
parative merits of direct and indirect taxation, a subject
which had long occupied the ablest minds of the commu-
nity. (Hear.) He himself could remember when the
advocates of direct taxation formed, as it were, a special
sect in the country, and when these gentlemen were re-
garded as mere speculative theorists by all practical poli-
ticians. Indeed, it was once argued that, in having re-
course to direct taxation, the Legislature were receding in
the march of civilisation • and Turkey—a country where
direct taxation is in the fullest force—was cited in support
of this view. On the other hand, it was considered by the
earlier political economists, that by means of indirect
taxation a large amount of revenue might be collected
almost without the ratepayers being cognisant of the
amount they paid. But there were those, too, who be-
lieved that indirect taxation naturally favoured a system
of protective duties. And therefore it was that, when
that system was abrogated by the tariff of the late Sir R.
Peel, the income tax was imposed. He was quite sure
that, no matter whether it be in the shape of an income
tax, or a house tax, the people of this country were fully
prepared to submit willingly to taxation ; but, then, they
must not be called upon to pay more than their just pro-
portion of it ; and the question for decision that night
was, what proportion ought they to pay ? (Hear, hear.)
Her Majesty's Government were prepared to impose upon
the country a system of direct taxation, but they should
be most careful as to how far they would extend it. They
had in their hands a most delicate instrument, which, if
used harshly, wrongfully, or violently, would be anything
but useful to them. So far as Parliament had as yet pro-
ceeded, they had only imposed direct taxation upon those
backs very well able to bear it. But if the doctrine which
had been propounded by. his right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in his budgets of this and last year
—a doctrine which, he was sorry to say, met with a
very large acceptance in the house—namely, that direct
taxation was something akin to confiscation—was to be
generally received, he for one must say that the system
of direct taxation would be carried to a point at which
the people of England would resist it altogether. (Hear,
hear.) To him it was a matter beyond all question that
every system of direct taxation must admit of exemp-
tions ; and, subject to these, he was quite ready to see it
enacted. For the Government might depend upon it that,
otherwise, the difficulty of collecting taxation would be so
great that the anticipated revenue would never be forth-
coming. (Hear.) Now, let him ask, was this doubled
house tax and extension of the income tax necessary ? Hon. gentlemen might depend upon it that the constitu-
encies of the country would be very
imperative in their
demands to know the reasons for such legislation. They
would be called upon to show how by such measures the
springs of industry were set free, or the popular wealth
augmented—to prove what advantage was conferred upon
the people in return for the ill-accepted compensation to
the landed interest. (Hear.) The question of the tea
duties depended upon an entirely different principle.
(Hear.) The remission proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer seemed to him to be a reasonable and prudent
one, and one which he (Mr. Milnes) would have supported
most heartily, coming from whatever Government it
might. To the question of the income tax, he was ready
to give his most earnest consideration ; and on this point
he was willing to recognise the distinction which had been
made by the right hon. gentleman between fixed incomes
and incomes derived from trades and professions, and to
accept what the common sense of the country had de-
clared to be rightful—(hear, hear)—and which he believed
to be a very sound and tenable principle of taxation.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that a very great deal of
difficulty would be got over if hon. gentlemen would
but make up their minds as to the proper principles upon
which taxation ought to be levied. The main point,
however, upon which he (Mr. Mines) approved of the dis-
tinction made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was,
that thereby a man's expenditure rather than his income
would be taken into consideration. He should have been
very glad if they had been enabled to approach the discus-
sion of to-night without seeing it demeaned by the intro-
duction of party contests. (Hear.) He did not mean to say
that the Budget ought to be, as it were, a riddle at which
a Chancellor of the Exchequer should be permitted to
have so many guesses, a view which seemed to have been
taken of it on some former occasions—(laughter)—but still
he believed that it was impossible for a finance Minister in
this country fully to understand what would be the effect of
any proposal until it was submitted to the consideration of
the public • and he was convinced that any Minister that
ignored public opinion would fail in his duty as a consti-
tutional Minister. (Hear.) Nevertheless, he must prepare
the Government for the storm which would yet be excited
in the country by what he must term a most injudicious
budget. Looking it as a whole, he was bound to confess
that it was most certainly calculated to re-open the con-
troversy between town and country which was so nearly
closed. He should, therefore, be very glad if his right
hon. friend opposite would re-consider the matter, and
wait until after Christmas, to see the impression which his
scheme produced upon the inhabitants of the towns. An
hon. gentleman had alluded to the question of disfranchise..

ment: He (Mr. Milnes) entertained no doubt that many
who now enjoyed the right of voting as 101. householders
would willingly remove to houses valued at 91. 155., to
avoid paying the small tax which it was proposed to collect
from them. Though he was unprepared to say that, in
any revision of the representative system, the principle of
taxation and representation should be separated, at the
same time he maintained that whatever was got out of the
class who inhabited houses of 101. value, would be lost to
the Government in the shape of excise duties. Looking at
the whole question, then, in the light he did, he regretted
that he was wholly unable to give his support to the budget
of his right hon. friend ; and when he remembered the ex-
pectation which had been held forth to the public, and
above ll by the right hon. gentleman himself, as to the
e!'.ure e of his great revision of taxation, he could hardly
E2untbelieve
,v9ethat the present was the scheme he had in store.
rybeavZ wished that the right hon. gentleman
' adhered to his is
plans, and that he had favoured
a scheme might some
spAghtly novelty, even though such
ex-
perienced and 9 encounter the opposition of the practical men of the country. (Hear, hear.)
'‘
Mr. SAND,,A g Wat,
nature of the new financi willing to admit the comprehensive
al proposal ; but at the
same time
he was forced to confess that he could not concede his ap-
proval to it, though for different reasons from those of the
hon. gentleman who had just sat down. He (Mr. Sandars) •

objected to the house tax, though, unlike the hon. member
for Pontefract, he saw no reason why such a tax should
not in. dude even those dwelling in houses valued at 71.
In his .pinion those who enjoyed the franchise might
fairly be called upon to contribute to the revenue, and if
those classes were unwilling to do so, ho, for one, was
quite ready to deprive them of the franchise. He entirely
objected to the reduction of half the malt tax. These ob-
jections he had urged on the occasion of the hon. member
for the North Riding of Yorkshire proposing the entire
reduction of the malt tax. He maintained, then, that
such a reduction would afford but a very small relief to the
agricultural interest, and that the sole advantage of its re-
peal would accrue to those great monopolists, the brewers.
And as to the consumers deriving any benefit therefrom,
he believed that the experience of the last few years, not-
withstanding the low price of barley, could prove that
they would obtain none whatever. There was another ob-
jeckon to taking off this tax. By so doing they would
throw a trade which had hitherto belonged exclusively to
this country into the hands of the foreigner. Barley was
an article that was only grown in certain parts of Europe,
and from November to March or April the ports from
which barley was shipped were closed. By the, plan of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer barley would be imported
during the winter months. This would not, therefore,
benefit the agricultural interest, becaused if it oaused an
increased consumption it would come in the shape of foreign
malt. But there was another objection. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposed to leave on all the expenses of col-
lection, while he took off half the tax. He agreed with
Adam Smith that no tax produced so large an amount of
revenue, and was at the same time so little felt by the
people, as a malt tax. But he had to consider whether
good or evil predominated in the scheme; and although he
objected to some parts of it, there were others which he
considered a great boon to the country. He particu-
larly alluded to the reduction of the duties on tea,
which he thought was a wise measure. It would increase
our trade with China, and afford a necessary of life to the
public at a cheaper rate. He thought, therefore, that the
mode in which it was proposed to take it off might be im-
proved. He gave his most cordial assent to that portion of
the scheme which recognised a difference, as regarded the
income tax, between real property and uncertain property
derived from professions. The distinction had been ad-
mitted for the first time in this country, and he wished the
right hon. gentleman had carried it a little further. He
wished the right hon. gentleman had not introduced frac-
tions of halfpence and farthings into the taxes he intended
to impose. He objected to the doubling of the house tax ;
and at the present time, with a largo surplus, he considered
there was no occasion for it. There was another important
question to be considered, and that was what would be the
consequences if the right hon. gentleman should not be
able to carry his Budget ? Constant changes in the Go-
vernment of a country like this were greatly to be depre-
cated, and he should be exceedingly sorry to throw any
impediment in the way of the present Government. He
should have been glad to have beaten out the bad and re-
served the good of the plan in committee ; but, as he
thought the good overbalanced the bad, he had made up
his mind to give his support to the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. H. VIVIAN (Truro) thought the Budget had led to
one great good, as it had entirely set at rest the great ques-
tion of free trade and protection, even more effectually
than if the house had agreed to the motion of the hon.
member for Wolverhampton. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had made many steps in the right direction. The
reduction of the tea duties was an important improvement
-in our commercial system. The case of the shipping inte-
rest had been considered in a very enlightened manner,
although he denied that any injury had been done to that
interest by our legislation. He was glad that the right
hon. gentleman had finally settled the sugar question.
But, as regarded the extension of the house tax, he thought
it was imposed on a class of the community wko were least
able to bear it ; and, in addition to the evils which had
already been pointed out, he was afraid it would tend to
increase the building of houses of an inferior description in
our growing towns. He should most decidedly oppose the
increase it was proposed to make in the house tax in order
that the malt tax might be repealed.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said he was little disposed to
sacrifice any question that was under discussion for the
sake of destroying or of upholding any party in that house,
and he should be still less disposed to do so when they were
entering upon what he might almost call a new course of
taxation ; for he was sure, whether it was by the present
Government or by any other Government which suc-
ceeded them, that the principles laid down in the Budget of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer were such as must be
carried out by every future Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This was the first time, perhaps, that any Chancellor of the
Exchequer had been able to take advantage of circum-
stances such as would enable him to do what he had done.
He cast no blame on the Chancellors of the Exchequer that
had gone by, but he said the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had done rightly to bring forward his measures in the shape
he had, however much he might differ from him on various
matters of detail. (Hear, hear.) But he thought it was
somewhat amusing to see the extraordinary dismay of the
ancient Free-traders, on the first appearance in this house
of direct taxation. They all remembered a description in
Milton of a personage of some power and notoriety, who,
on seeing his own offspring, exclaimed—
" Whence and what art thou, execrable shape,
That dar'st to cross my way !"
(Laughter.) This seemed to be exactly what those gentle-
men were saying, now they had arrived at that direct taxa-
tion for which they had been so clamorous. (Hear, hear.)
It was really not a very difficult question. Direct taxation,
in his opinion, had not been carried far enough by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The sources of it were land, in the
first place, funds, and houses. In his opinion, it ought to
go over the whole extent of those three objects. (Hear.)
Then there was to be another tax on incomes ; and let them
observe, by this they would relieve all the professional
incomes, because they would not pay the tax on property.
It sounded perhaps very well, but the fallacy of direct
taxation had been proved in a neighbouring country on a
very large scale. The hon. member for Montrose shook his
head, but there were gentlemen in this house who remem-
bered that, at the beginning of the French Revolution, in
order to strike at the privileged classes, they abolished in-
direct and took to direct taxation. They would also re-
member that, at the very time when Napoleon was desiring
to be chosen Emperor, and was inclined to flatter the peo-
ple, he declared that he must return again to indirect
taxation, as direct taxation was totally useless. The ex-
pression of M. Thiers on the subject was remarkable. He
said—" Ce steme, si beau dans la theorie, si faux dans
le principe," had utterly failed, and they were obliged
to revert to indirect taxation. It was by indirect
taxation alone that they could touch the masses. And
whilst they held up, he would not say to public dis-
like, but in an offensive way, those classes which they
called they aristocracy, let them be so good as to re-
member that the aristocracy, in point of property and
number, were as nothing in the balance. They led the
people to suppose that the aristocracy were a sort of
diggings, and if they were well taxed, the rest of the pub-
lic might go free. (Laughter.) It was a total fallacy.
Those taxes were the most productive which taxed the
greatest number of consumers. The hon. member for the
West Riding (Mr. Cobden) was the only person he had
ever heard in that house who was consistent on this sub-
ject. He differed with the hon. member as to the end to
be attained, but he had truly said both here and in his
writings, " Give us direct taxation, for it will be so odious
that it will never be paid." (Hear, hear.) If this princi-
ple were true, they ought, according to sound reason, to
extend their house and property taxes to the very lowest
scale, down to the smallest cottage. But if they did so,
in troublous times they would never be able to collect it.
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the malt tax, he never had
advocated the repeal of that tax. But so far from its be-
ing a question between town and country, he thought it
was a question between hop-growers, who never drank
beer, and poor people who did. The lower classes now
saw through the juggle. They .knew that the dealers in
London were condemning them to drink blacking, which
was called beer. (Laughter.) Those gentlemen who sold
it always drank sherry themselves and when his poetic
friend opposite (Mr. M. Milnes) said he was afraid more
beer would be drunk, and it was not good for the health of
the people, he was sure that worthy inhabitant ofParnassus
—(laughter)—drank very little of it himself, and did not
know what it was. It was, and ever must be while the
present excise laws continued, a bad mess. There was no
doubt that the repeal of the malt tax was an efficient mea-
sure. It was a step in the right direction, and how the
economists opposite could possibly vindicate their principles
from the results of the excise laws he knew not. He
(Mr. Drummond) never did take part against any Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He did not care whether he
brought forward one or ten Budgets during the year.
He thought his hon. friend the last Chancellor of
the Exchequer was by far the best they had ever
possessed, and certainly neither Whig nor Tory did
he ever remember whose calculations were so exact.
(Hear, hear.) Why they all close to badger him so in the
last Parliament he could not think. (Laughter.) He (Mr.
H. Drummond) had always supported his measures. Of all
the offices under Government there were more gentlemen
in this house who thought they were qualified to fill that
than any other office ; but so far as his experience wont,
he thought it was the most difficult of all offices, and he
never would oppose the Budget of any Chancellor of the
Exchequer, let it be what it might. (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. HEADLAM observed that the house was justified in
assuming that it was now about to take into consideration
the whole finances of the country. With respect to the
house duty, he believed the country was opposed to any in-
crease of taxation, but more especially to one of so harsh
and oppressive a character as an increased house tax. He
for one felt more confidence in the first Budget of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered on the Ist of May,
than in the last. Upon that occasion the right hon. gentleman
had stated that the surplus at the end of the current financial
year (sth April, 1853) would, in all probability, amount to
461,0001. Since that time the Kafir war had been, most
fortunately and unexpectedly, terminated, and the grant,
of 200,0001., advanced on its account, had not been ex-
pended. Against the latter sum and the expended surplus,
the supplemental expenditure of 600,0001., just granted,
would have to be deducted, and thus the surplus in the
Exchequer, on the Ist of April next, would only amount to
a very small sum. He believed the reduction of the duty on
tea would give satisfaction to the country. The duty on
tea now realised very nearly 6,000,000/. per annum, but if
the consumption were to increase during the next six years
in the same proportion as the consumplion of sugar from
1846 to 1852 (33 per cent.), the duty would yield 3,000,000/.
to the revenue. The present consumption of tea was now
51,000,0001b5. per annum, and if it increased in proportion
with sugar, the loss to the revenue on 74,000,000 lbs. (the
increased consumption being taken at 20,000,000 lbs,) would
be 2,200,0001. The excise duty on malt now amounted to
5,000,000/. per annum, but the argument in favour of the
increased consumption of tea did not apply to malt, for
there was no reason to suppose the consumption of that
article would increase. The revenue would also sustain a
loss of 2,000,000/. upon hops, and taking all these deduc-
tions together, the total sacrifice to the revenue would be
nearly 5,000,000/., and that, too, at a moment when we had
to expect increased expenditurefor purposes of national de-
fence. He did not think it would be safe or consistent
with the prosperity of the country to jeopardise so large an
amount of revenue, and he objected to the Budget on the
ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been
able to adduce any argument for supposing that the na-
tional finances would be left in a satisfactory state if his
propositions were carried out. It seemed to him that they
were about to take the malt tax off one class and put it on
another. He was satisfied that, if such a proposition were
sanctioned by a temporary majority in the house, the
question would still remain unsettled. There would be
a vast amount of dissatisfaction out of doors, and there
would by no motions, year after year, for the repeal of
the tax. The effect of the repeal of the malt tax would
be to benefit the brewer only, as the consumer would never
sensibly feel it. More than a hundred years ago, when Dr.
Johnson was about to sell Thrailes Brewery, he said he was
not there to sell vats and tubs and mere utensils, but
"the potentiality of becoming rich beyond the dreams of
avarice." He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer

would act wisely if he abandoned the increase of the house
tax andthe repeal of half the malt duties. He readily agreed
that the reduction of the tea duties was a most valuable
proposition, and likely to be acceptable to the consumers.
The expectations held out by the Government to the people
were utterly false and delusive, for their scheme would not
bear investigation, it was so open to objection. There was
no legerdemain about the finances of the country; if one
tax was taken off, and the deficit had to be made up, ano-
ther must be imposed, but then such a tax ought to be se-
lected as would press least on the industry of the commu-
nity. The wisest and ablest Chancellor of the Exchequer
could not do more than that ; but what he complained of
was, that a course exactly contrary had been taken on the
present occasion.
Mr. CAYLEY thought there was some inconsistency in
the speech of the hon. member who had just addressed the
house, because he charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with wishing to obtain popularity, and then went on to
show that the propositions in his budget would make him
unpopular. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member objected to
the intended alterations, but he forgot that they were ren-
dered necessary by the neglect of duty on the part of the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The great change in the
commercial policy of the country ought to have convinced
him that the financial policy ought to be accommodated
to that change. That was not done, and it was one of the
greatest blots, not only upon the Government of Sir R.
Peel, who effected the change, but upon every Govern-
ment that had preceded the present one, that no attempt
000fked attempting
unmoved
was made to mitigate the sufferings of the particular classes
with the
kind, anything a
o f h
kininjudr,etdh.e
late Government
Insteadl
per-
fect calmness on the sufferings of their fellow-creatures.
He confessed he greatly admired the statesmanlike, en-
lightened, and comprehensive speech of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. In that speech he took the recent com-
mercial policy into consideration, and directed his searching
attention to the distress of the agricultural classes, with
the view of probing them to the bottom, and discovering
some mode of relief. If there was one thing which pleased
him more than another, it was the vigorous determination
which he evinced to institute the most rigid inquiry into
every department of the State, for tie purpose of cleansing
the Aegean stable of all the rubbish and filth which had
accumulated in it for ages. He admired his character,
and would still respect and support him. (Hear.) He
(Mr. Cayley) deemed it most presumptuous detaining the
house after the speech of the hon. member for Hertford,
who enttrely expressed his feelings and sentiments on the
state of affairs ; but, by way of appendix, he would advert
to some points which he had omitted to mention. As
regarded the shipping interests, he had never heard them
dealt with in so masterly and able a manner as by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer ; and that not on obsolete prin-
ciples, but on principles recently adopted by the country.
(Hear.) He had long wished that the grievances of that
important interest should be met in such a manner. It was
impossible not to feel that the majority of the house ap-
proved of the main propsitions contained in the budget.
If the house tax became unpopular, it would be for a time
only, as the people would soon forget their objections to it
in the advantages the country would derive from the re-
peal of duties and other measures. (Hear, hear.) He was
glad the right hon. gentleman did not touch the county
rates, as a remission of twopence or threepence in the pound
would have been a boon scarcely worth accepting. In his
opinion the house tax was the best tax that could be im-
posed on income, as persons could not evade it as they did
the income tax, and probably that was one of the reasons of
its unpopularity. As to the reduction of the malt duties, it
was always admitted, that if the corn laws were abandoned
the malt tax ought to be repealed. Sirß. Peel had admitted
that himself, for he said if the corn laws were abolished
it would be necessary to allow the agriculturist to grow his
own tobacco, and beet-root for the manufacture of sugar.
The same opinion was also expressed by the right hon.
gentleman the member for Carlisle. (Hear, hear.) The
malt tax, however, involved other considerations. Licen-
ses from the Excise had to be obtained by the master, the
brewer, and the retailer, and each had to abide by strin-
gent regulations. If the maltster happened to be found out
in a disobeyance of these regulations, he was liable to a
fine of 1001. for each offence, and was sometimes made to
pay 1,0001. He would ask how a manufacturer of stock-
ings, or any other article of that description, would like
to submit to such burdens and restrictions ? (Hear,
hear.) Yet that was what hon. members opposite called
free trade and unrestricted competition. (Hear.) Let
them see what was the amount of the tax. It was five mil-
lions, but in reality it cost the public much more---it cost
them twenty millions. And this was considered to be a
convenient form of finance. If the malt tax was repealed,
beer would be a great deal cheaper. It was said, however,
that keeping up the price of beer tended to promote morality.
He believed that if the tax were repealed it would drive
men away from the beer-shop, who would enjoy their pot
more conveniently in their own family. He believed also
that if it were repealed the produce of barley would in-
crease three-fold. The frauds on the excise were now ex-
cessive, and this in itself was an evil. They admitted
there had been a fall in the price of corn since the abolition
of the corn laws, and he believed that, by the repeal of
this single tax—the malt tax—they would have the best
and most legitimate remedy against the evil consequences
resulting from the repeal of the corn laws. For himself,
as an agricultural landlord, he was ready to cry " quits"
for the repeal of the corn laws if this tax were abolished.
The hon. member for Montrose had told them they ought
to be more scientific in their farming; and the right hon.
baronet (Sir J. Graham) had told them to grow less wheat,
and more barley. They were growing less wheat, but they
were prohibited from growing more barley ; and he was
persuaded that, if this tax were repealed, there would not
be an acre from Land's End to John o'Groat's-house, and
throughout the whole of Ireland, which would not
be equally benefited by the proposed relief. The hon.
gentleman complained that the farmers in this country
were not permitted to apply the potato in the way done in
Germany towards the fattening of cattle. He next came
to the house tax. He must ask why the 101. householder
should be exempted from taxation ? If the window duties
had not been reduced, there would be no necessity for the
proposed extension of the house tax. The shopkeeping
interest objected to this tax, but they, more than any other
class, had received the benefit of the recent reductions of
taxation. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had shown great consideration in not
immediately extending the income tax to Ireland, because
the state of that country, in consequence of the famine and
other causes, was not so satisfactory as that of England.
The budget submitted by the Government appeared to him
to relieve a suffering class—a class loaded with exclusive and
oppressive burdens—it appeared to him to contain a right
and a just modification of the income tax, and to benefit the
consumers by a reduction of the high duties on beer and on
tea. Reject this budget, and they rejected the principle of
relieving an oppressed and suffering class —theyrejected the
extension of the income tax to that portion of Irish property
best able to bear it—they rejected not merely the consider-
ation of relieving the oppressed agriculturist, but of cheap-
ening articles of general consumption. (Hear, hear.) He
called upon the house, but especially new members, to re-
flect upon these suggestions. And, again, were they not
to look at the future government of this country ? Who
were to be the successors of the present Administration—
(hear, hear.) Could a Cabinet be formed out of such in-
congruous materials as those he saw opposite ? (Laughter.)
What fetters could bind them in unity—what fetters
would not be burst—what fetters, if strong enough to hold
them, must not cripple their action ? (Cheers.) They
would have a budget from such a Government, of which
they knew nothing, and from men of whom, if possible,
they knew still less. It appeared to him that the country,
acting upon its natural instinct and common sense, was
willing to receive and adopt this budget—(hear)—he be-
lieved that neither the interests of faction nor the clamor
of agitators could prevent the country frbm seeing and
appreciating the merits of the bold, comprehensive, and
masterly scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The common sense of the nation was in favour of it.
(Cheers.)
Sir C. WOOD—If ho agreed with the hon. gentleman
that the common sense of the country was in favour of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget, he should have
scarcely thought worth while to discuss it ; but he took
leave to doubt whether the common sense of the country
had accepted it, or would accept it. (Hear.) He made no
apology for discussing the whole of the budget, though but
one proposition
was before the house, for the whole hung
together, and it was impossible to discuss one part without
referring to the others. (Hear.) As the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had disposed of the claims of what was termed
"a suffering interest," he hoped this was the last time he
should hear of those claims. (Derisive cheers.) The hon.
gentleman had spoken of the shipping interest as a suffering
interest, but for his own part, he (Sir C. Wood) could not
see where that suffering existed. He had heard of the in-
crease of shipbuilding in this country, which did not show
that our shipowners believed they could not compete with
foreigners. From the very last return of trade and naviga-
tion, he saw that British shipping was outstripping that
foreign shipping with which it was brough into competi-
tion ; and these facts and figures, patent to all, were pro-
duced by the right hon. gentleman opposite, who, he well
knew, would not falsify them. He repeated there was no
no suffering he could discover which needed relief. (Hear.)
The right hon. gentleman had proposed measures for the re-
lief of the shipping interest. He quarrelled not with those
measures ; but the measures of the Government were for
the relief of the foreigner as well as of our shipowners. It
was quite right this should be done ; he approved of it on
general commercial principles ; but, so far as enabling the
British shipowner better to compete with the foreigner, he
unhesitatingly said that Government had not done anything
of the kind. Those duties which pressed most severely on
British shipbuilders, and which most effectually impeded
their competition with the foreign shipbuilders, Government
did not propose to interfere with—the timber duties. (Hear,
hear.) If they were disposed really to benefit the British
shipowner, and to enable him to compete with, or outstrip
the foreigner, the best course would have been to reduce
the timber duties. The only benefits which were proposed
were in accordance with the views of the late Government,
expressed by him (Sir Charles Wood) two years ago. The
next interest was the West India interest. He could not
blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in
which he treated the so-called claims of the West India
interest. He would not now go into the question—it was
fully discussed last night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had expressed his (Sir C. Wood's) views, and the views of
the Government of which he was a member, upon this
question. He admitted there was temporary distress on
the part of that interest—sufferings which he lamented ;
but the late Government had, by the advance of loans,
taken measures to improve the condition of those colonies
—a step of which the right hon. gentleman opposite ap-
proved. Those loans had been for the purposo of pro-
moting emigration to those colonies,
' and he was glad to
learn they had been at least to some extent, successful. But
what the late Government contended for was, and their
argument had been realised by the facts, that by the aid of
science, free labour would excel slave labour—would at
least be enabled successfully to compete with it. The third
" suffering interest" was the agricultural body of this coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen opposite had on a for-
mer occasion declared that that interest was suffering under
peculiar burdens, and they claimed
compensation for those
burdens. Now, the right hon gentleman finding himself
in the position of an English
Minister, had done that which
he was bound to do—rejected those claims altogether. He
trusted that, after this utter rejection of those claims, by
their most able advocate, the house would hear no more of
them. The right hon. gentleman had formerly, in terms as
strong as the English language would afford, claimed com-
pensation for those burdens to the agricultural interest; but
now, finding himself in a position of responsibility, he felt
compelled to dispel the delusion. (Free trade cheers.) Yet it
was with such language—exclusive burdens of the agricul-
tural interest, &c., that the farmer had been imposed upon,
and no one could say that the condition of the farmers had
not been injured—that the relations of landlord and tenant
had not been embarrassed, by the continual enunciation of
this language, and by the hopes held out for a remedy.
(Hear.) He had encountered the right hon. gentleman on this

question in 1849. It had been renewed in 1850 and in
1851. But now the right hon. gentleman thought it wise
and just to regret the proposal for this species of compensa-
tion, and in so far affirming that the law of 1846 was "wise,
just, and beneficial." The right hon. gentleman could not
deny but the condition of the labourer and of the consumer
generally was improved, and that the poor-rates were much
less. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for those ad-
missions—effects which the First Lord of the Treasury and
the President of the Board of Trade attributed to emigration
and to discovery of gold in Australia. But the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had, in truth, acknowledged that the
well-doing of the industrial classes, and the general pros-
perity of the country, was owing almost exclusively
to "recent legislation," but which he yet was not
disposed to vote as " wise, just, and beneficial." He would
now pass to the measures which some hon. gentlemen were
disposed to consider as boons to the agricultural interest.
He was glad hon. gentlemen, representing the agricultural
interest were satisfied with such boons • but they appeared
to him to be of the most paltry kind. 'What benefit would
the remission of half of the malt duty be to them, 'coupled
with the free importation of foreign malt ? What crop
paid the best at the present moment ? Was it not barley ?
What stock paid the best ? Was it not the stock fed on
'the same kind of land as that on which barley was grown,
namely, sheep ? If upon any description of land no boon
was required, it was that very land to which a boon was
given. The hon member for Wakefield (Mr. Sandars), who
was a supporter of the Government, had told them it would
be next to no benefit at all, inasmuch as it was in the shape of
malt that foreign barley eould be most readily brought into
competition with home-grown barley. But while the benefit
would be nothing, or next to nothing, there would be an
immense loss to the revenue. The same objection applied
to a reduction of half the hop duty. There would have
been some sense in proposing to take off the whole duty,
but now the advantage to the grower would be nothing.
But was there nothing else in this budget which would
affect the landed interest ? Local rates were, in fact, the
diminution of the landlord's rent, and it would have been
some boon to the landlords to relieve the land of local rates;
but instead of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
his income tax scheme, lessened the burdens imposed' by
the other schedules, but left the rates paid by the land-
owners as it was. He warned the landed gentlemen of
England that they were about to have put on them a
burden, the ultimate extent of which it might be difficult,
nay, it was difficult to foresee, because no one could tell
on what principlee the difference now made for the first
time could be limited. He now came to the budget of
the right honourable gentleman 'itself. The right hon.
gentleman assumed that he would have a surplus of
1,350,0001., things remaining as they were. He states that
the vote or the Kafir war will, this year, be less by
260,0001., which made 1,610,0001. He proposed to repeal
half the malt tax after October, to lower the tea duties, and
to relieve the shipping interest, which caused a loss of re-
venue amounting to 2,100,0001. To meet this, he had the
surplus of 1,610,0001. from increased house duty, 900,0001.
and 400,0001. being the repayment of loans made by the
Public Works' Loan Commissioners. The result is, that to
meet the additional charge of 2,100,000/., he has 2,500,0001.,
leaving a surplus of 400.0001. The right hon. gentleman i
the member for the University of Oxford, early in the even-
ing, had objected to the budget in limine, because the sur-
plus was produced not from the year's income obtained
from the taxation of the country, but by applying to ways
and means a sum which was originally a loan. The pro-
cess was this—some years ago, in a time of distress, Ex-
chequer-bills were issued and the money raised on them,
which was advanced to various parties with a view of finding
employment. Those Exchequer-bills were paid off from
time to time, and fresh Exchequer-bills issued until the year
1842, when a stop was put to the issue of Exchequer-bills,
and the sums that had been lent out came back in annual
repayments of 360,0001. a-year. It was provided that the
Exchequer-bills, then outstanding, should be brought up
with the savings' bank money, and, of course, remained a
portion of the debt of the country; and the sums annually
repaid were again advanced. Thus a kind of circular re-
volving fund was created of these annual repayments, and
the commissioners were always in a position to advance
money. The right hon. gentleman proposed to put an end
to that, and he (Sir C. Wood) must express strongly his
disagreement with the policy of such a procedure. It was
true, as the right hon. gentleman had said, that money
might be had at a cheaper rate, but it was part of the ori-
ginal policy of the grant that it should take a higher rate
of interest, in order that it might not interfere with pri-
vate capital. Many of the most useful works in this coun-
try, and Ireland had been aided by these advances—gaols,
workhouses, bridges, lunatic asylums, and similar buildings
--the repayments being made in a most convenient manner.
But assuming that the system be put an end to, what was
to be done with the money henceforward to be repaid? The
whole sum now amounted to nearly 3,000,0001., partly
raised originally by loan, andpartly bywhat the Public Works
Commissioners called their profit—being the difference be-
tween the rate of interest paid by the borrower and that
paid by the Government. As to that part of the money
proceeding from the original bonded debt, he never heard
of its being considered a portion of the annual revenue of
the country applicable to meet the annual expenditure. If
an end be put to the system, the repayments ought to be
devoted to the reduction of the debt incurred for the esta-
blishment of the fund. That seemed as clear as the sun at
noon-day. To do otherwise was just as if 600,0001. were
borrowed to create a fictitious surplus, and no honest man
in the house, looking at the credit of the country, could
say that that was a proper application of the money.
(Cheers.) Then as to the ensuing year, the result of the right
hon. gentlemen's statement again left a surplus of about
400,000/. entirely en
Heshould t uon the money derived from
the repayment of loans. like to ask the right
hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, with
his knowledge of finance—with his opinions of what' was
due to public credit—if he had considered and approved this
budget ? (Cheers.) Considering the state of prosperity the
country was in, and what was now the state of the revenue,
how could any man consent that the whole surplus should
be created by a loan ? (Cheers.) And that not only this
year, but for two consecutive years, and he knew not for
how much longer. In saying this for the year 1854-5, he
assumed that the calculations of the right hon. gentleman
were correct as to the produce of the taxes ; but even with
that assumption, such a means of creating surplus was
wholly unjustifiable. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen-
tleman proposed to reduce the malt duty by one half, and
as that duty at present yielded 5,000,0001., there ought to
be a loss to the revenue by that reduction of 2,500.000/. ;
but by some means or other,—by the increased consump-
tion which would follow the reduction of the duty, the
right hon. gentleman seemed to suppose that the loss to the
revenue on that item would be no more than 1,700,0001.
Probably, the right hon. gentleman expected that that loss
would be, in great measure, made up by the drawback
upon malt, of which he proposed to deprive the Scotch dis-
tillers. A few years ago the Scotch and Irish members, in
conjunction with the right hon. gentleman, succeeded in
putting him (Sir Charles Wood) in a minority in favour of
the retention of that drawback, and now, the right hon. gen-
tleman turned round unkindly upon his former proteges
and proposed to deprive them of all advantage arising from
the drawback system. Now, with regard to the large increase
in the consumption of beer, which the right hon. gentleman
anticipated from his proposed reduction of the malt duty, he
(Sir C. Wood) believed that there were no grounds for
such expectation. He (Sir C. Wood) entirely differed from
the calculation of his hon. friend the member for the
North Riding. Ho could quote the opinion of one of the
highest authorities in this country on the subject of malt,
against the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
as to the effect of his proposed reduction on the consump-
tion of beer. This was not the first time that such a reduc-
tion had been made in the malt duty. It was a remarkable
fact, that increased consumption did not necessarily follow a
reduction of the malt duty. The malt duty was reduced in
1816, from 4s. s(d. to 2s. 2d., and the consumption of malt
fell from 26,000,000 bushels to 20,000,000. In 1819, the
duty was increased, and the consumption likewise increased.
(Laughter.) In 1821, the duty was reduced, and the con-
sumption likewise fell to a small extent. But the most im-
portant reduction was made in 1830, when the right hon.
gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge
(Mr. Goulburn) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. At
that time every exertion was made to promote a consump-
tion of malt. The whole excise duty upon beer was re-
pealed, all restrictions were removed, the licensing system
was extended—in fact, everything that could be done,
consistently with the retention of a duty on malt, was
done in order to increase the consumption of beer. Some
increase, no doubt, did take place, but it was only an in-
crease of from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 in the first year
after the reduction, and 31,000,000 in 1833. But it was a
remarkable fact that, in 2841-2, the 31,000,000 fell down
to 30,000,000. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") And now as to
the evidence which was given by the gentleman to whom
he had alluded, viz., Mr. Charles Barclay, before the
committee of the House of Lords, which sat to inquire
into the burdens on land. On being questioned as to the
effect of a reduction of the malt duty, to the extent
of 10s. per barrel, Mr. Barclay's reply was, that it would
make the price of beer only one farthing per pot less.
Now, did that result give the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer any ground to hope that his proposed reduction of
the malt duty would have such an effect on the price of
beer as to induce the public to increase their consumption of
it to even one-third of the estimate which he had formed ?
According to the calculation of Mr. Barclay, the increase
to the revenue by the proposed reduction would be, not
800,0001., as the right hon gentleman anticipated, but only
200,0001. If the income tax were adopted in the shape pro-
posed by the right hon. gentlemen, even according to his own
showing it would yield 150,0001. less than at present. His
surplus, as ho called it, consisted of a loan, and he had mis-
calculated his receipts to the extent of 550,0001. Now, even
supposing he (Sir Charles Wood) was wrong in his calcula-
tions by 200,000/. or 300,0001., still the right hon. gentle-
man had a deficiency—and a deficiency, mind, created
wilfully by his own legislation. (Hear, hear.) We were
not in times of such extraordinary safety that we could
afford to tamper with our means of revenue. (Hear,
hear.) And that fact 'alone should be a reason to
induce the house to deliberate much before they 'acceded
to the propositions of the right hon. gentleman. If he,
from the votes of the other night, could form any estimate
of the true feelings of the house on the subject of our na-
tional defences, he believed that the house felt that one of
our surest means of defence against foreign invasionwas
not so much great military strength as the possession of
boundless credit. (Hear, hear.) Now he thought the house
would pause before they tampered with our revenue, which
was so essential to the maintenance of our national credit.
They-were told that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer
was to submit to the house some great phenomenon in the
shape of a budget of an altogether novel and attractive
description. Every one expected that the country would
be delighted, if not by some necromantic operation on the
part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least by a scheme
which would please every man by putting money into
their pockets, and would effectually prevent the taking any
out. He (Sir C. Wood) wished he could say that such was
the feature of the present budget. It seemed to him
that money would be taken out of our pockets by this
budget, whilst it put none in. He bore his willing testi-
mony to the ability and eloquence of the right hon. gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he certainly
could not discover in this his budget any wonderful and
new principle of finance': (Cheers.) The principles em-
bodied in the budget might be right, or they might be
wrong—he would say nothing on that point ; but where
was that new and wonderful discovery in financial science
which had so charmed the hon. member for the North
Riding. The principle of this budget was the old thing
over again—the reduction of indirect and the increase of
direct taxation. That might be a right pririciple--he
would say nothing about it ; but it was simply the taking
off one tax and putting on another. Whilst the right hon.
gentleman dealt with indirect taxation in a manner to
benefit no one, he dealt with direct taxation in a manner
that was needlessly oppressive. (Loud cheers.) He quite
concurred with the right hon. gentleman as to the desirable-
ness of reducing the duty on tea. Two years ago he had a
conversation with some gentlemen touching the remission
of the tea duties ; but, considering the influence for
evil which the window tax had upon the health and well-
being of the community, he thought it was his duty, in the
first instance, to repeal that tax. Referring to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's proposition as to the duty on
hops, the right hon. baronet said that he (Mr. Disraeli)
had made as many blunders as it was possible to make

in so small a matter. The present duty was 2d per lb.,
and the right hon. gentleman proposed to reduce it one-
half, and put on a protective duty also of 5 per cent.
Now, why were the hop growers to be troubled with that
5 per cent. in addition to the duty. It was a reasonable
enough proposition on the part of his right hon. friend
(Mr. Goulburn), when he dealt with all the duties, to raise
them all sor 10 per cent., as the case may be. As to
malt, he did not quarrel with the manner in which the
right hon: gentleman proposed to deal with the foreign
grower; but what will be done with hops ? 12s. per cwt.
would be more than ample for any excise purposes, and
more than treble the duty on foreign hops. Yet the right
hon, gentleman proposed to levy 11.25. 6d. per cwt. (Hear.)
And that was, forsooth, a carrying out of the principle of
unrestricted competition, which they were told was the
principle upon which the Government were determined to
act. He believed that the reduction of the hop duties on
the system on which the Government intended to re-
duce them would be inoperative of any substantial benefit
to the consumer, and would simply cause a deficiency in
the revenue. With regard to the malt tax, he was sur-
prised to hear his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Cayley) enlarge
on the hardships which the maltsters endured under the
present state of things, and still more was he surprised to
find him complaining of the great cost at which the malt
tax was collected. The Commissioners of Excise, of whom
Sir H. Parnell was one and Mr. Wycombe another, inquired
most minutely into this subject some years ago, and reported
that no tax was less objectionable than the malt tax—that
it was less felt and less injurious to the community than
any other, and that no other tax was collected at so small
an expense, in proportion to the revenue derived from it.
And with respect to the maltsters themselves, Mr. Taylor
one of the most eminent of their body, declared, on his
examination before a committee of the Lords in 1846, that
they had benefited by the removal of ancient restrictions,
and that as a body they were satisfied with the present
condition of their trade. The tax was allowed on the best
authority that could be cited, to be less felt and less inju-
rious to all parties concerned than any other that could be
instanced ; and this being so, he must take leave to say that
the right hon. gentleman had exercised a very unsound
discretion in singling it out for reduction. (Hear, hear.)
He confessed he participated *in the apprehension of the
hon. member for Wakefield (Mr. Sandars), that if one
half the malt tax were taken off, the maltsters and brewers
of England would pocket all the advantage, and the bene-
fit to the consumer would be so small as to be scarcely
perceptible. Surely when a Chancellor of the Exchequer
was looking round to see what taxes he should remit
or reduce, it was incumbent on him to select those taxes
which were most objectionable. Such, for example, were
the protective duties on paper, and the protective duties
on butter and cheese. The duties on butter and cheese were
avowedly and essentially protective duties, and greater
benefit would result to the industrial classes, and indeed to
the agricultural classes themselves, from the abolition of
such imposts, than from the reduction of the malt tax.
With respect to the income tax, he was of opinion that
nothing could be more injudicious than the mode in which
the Government proposed to meddle with it. Ono would
suppose that their object had been to render direct taxation
to which they professed to be friendly, utterly intolerable.
They proposed to extend the income tax to incomes of 1001.
a-year in schedules A and B—to funded incomes of 501. a-
year in schedules C and D, and to official salaries. They
also proposed to extend it to Ireland, at the same time
that they doubled the house duty. Was it possible that
they could have reflected how numerous were the classes
who by this arrangement would be brought under taxation
for the first time ? There was no doctrine of finance
which the present Government, when in opposition, were
so fond of reiteratieg, as that the income tax ought to
be merely a temporary impost ; and it must be in the re-
membrance of the house that by far the most skilful finan-
cier of their party, the right hon. gentleman the member
for Stamford (Mr. Herries) had suggested that the first use
which should be made of the surplus was to devote it to the
reduction of the income tax. The present policy of the
Government but ill accorded with that sound and judicious
proposition. Small landowners, that class for whom the
Government affected to feel the strongest sympathy, would
suffer most severely from this notable project. A man who
had 521. a year in land, would henceforward have to pay
30s. a year income tax, and he might think himself lucky
if he escaped the house tax as well. In schedule C, widows
and retired tradesmen who had saved up a pittance of some
601. or 701. a year for their declining years, would also
find themselves brought for the first time within the
range of this voracious impost. The injustice to Ire-
land was also most flagrant, and the inequalities of the
system were nowhere more flagrant than in this counts/.
The small shopkeeper in Dublin, the saviors of whose life
were amassed in the funds, was to be taxed, while the
great Irish proprietor was to escape nasealked. And that
they called justice. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had talked a great deal about the
exemption from taxation that Ireland enjoyed, and he
emplained that whereas that country ought to have con-
tributed 400,0001. a year in stamp and spirit duties to
make amends for the absence of the income tax, she had
only contributed 16,0001. a year, and in order to make
good that deficiency, he proposed a project which at the
first glance appeared moderate, but which in point of fact
was most deceptive. But he (Sir C. Wood) predicted that
the Irish members would not be so easily caught. If the
present proposition were carried, the Irish landlord in the
lapse of time would not escape. The egregious injustice
of the case would be too flagrant not to call for a remedy.
It would not be endured, that the inspector of police
should pay the tax on his small salary, while the owner of
the adjoining estate got off scot free. (Hear.) It was
the insertion of the narrow end of the wedge, and the
Irishman was a more foolish fellow than he (Sir C. Wood)
took him to be, if he suffered himself to be gulled by such
a scheme. For his own part he had never concealed his
opinion that, regard being had to the present circumstances
of Ireland, it was neither just, wise, nor politic to extend
the income tax to that country. Circumstanced as she at
present was, Ireland had already sufficient burdens, and it
was the duty of the Legislature rather to develop her re-
sources than to oppress them by additional taxation. He
did not say that the time might not come when it would be
advisable to extend the income tax to Ireland, but that
time had not as yet arrived. (Hear, hear.) Besides, the
imposition of this tax upon the fundholder, and not' the
landowner of Ireland, was a gross breach of faith. When
the right hon. gentleman imposed a duty of 7d. on those
in schedule B, and sjd. on schedule D, did he know what
property was in schedule B, and what salaries were in sche-
dule D ? In dealing with the Irish fundholders, he came
into collision with an act of Parliament. What was the
interpretation to be put upon that act ? (A voice—" It is
a breach of faith.") That act prohibited him from impos-
inc, a tax on the income from the funds. This at least it
said, "You shall tax all other property of the same descrip-
tion after the same rate, all incomes not temporary and pre-
carious." No one would contradict that, not the honour-
able member for Montrose or any other would say, if the
funds were to be taxed, that all other incomes of a similar
nature ought not to be taxed also at the same rate. Well,
was there any reason why he who derived income from the
public funds should pay 7d., and he that had his money
in East India Stock only 511. ? (Hear, hoar.) Was there
any reason why ho who held an estate in England should
be taxed at 7d. on his income, while large proprietors,
like the Duke of Devonshire or the Marquis of Hertford,
deriving princely fortunes from estates in Ireland, and
spending them in England, paid nothing? (Hear, hear.)
Ought he who held an Exchequer bill to pay 7d., and he
that held railway debentures only 54d. ? (Hear.) That
was the right hon. gentleman's scheme, and he did not
hesitate to call it a breach of public honesty, a breach of
public faith. (Cheers.) There was more in that scheme
of his. The words of the right hon. gentleman were rather
indistinctly put, but he understood him to say that far-
mers were to be allowed to put their incomes down at one-
third their profits, so that those who now paid on 1501.
would put themselves down at 100/., and the income tax
would be charged upon that. But, at the same time, he
proposed extending the tax to all incomes of 1001., except
tenant farmers, and they were to be allowed to put down
their profits at one-third. (Cheers). That was an injus-
tice—it was a fraud—and it was ingeniously wrapped up.
He would bring before the house another
.piece of calcu-
lation, which was nearly as gross. The right hon. gen-
tleman, by way of giving a boon to the clergy, said he
would relieve all those whose incomes did not exceed 1001.
from the tax, and that that would cost the country
30,0001. Now, that sum of 30,0001. paying 5,/d. instead
of 7d., represented income to the amount of between
3,000,0001. and 4,000,0001. (A voice—capital,, not in-
come.) Yes, income, because it was 30,0001. at 2d. the
difference of the rates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER--You have
misunderstood me. I merely stated that the clergy with
ncomes of 1001. should be exempted from the hardship of
schedule A, and should be the same as a person in schedule
D, with an income of 1001., and therefore should be en-
tirely exempted.
Sir C. WOOD.—If he understood the statement of the
right hon. gentleman now, he was still right, because the
person with 1001. in schedule D would have to pay, and the
clergy, he said, were to pay equally. Those with incomes
under 1001. were exempt no doubt. As to the house tax,
that was an impost to which he had never entertained any
objection, and when he fixed the limit at 201., he did not
suppose there was any virtue in that. The limit of 201. was
taken, not because he was imposing it for the first time, but
in substituting it for the window tax, he wished to extend
the new tax no further than the area of the previous impost,
and to raise no more than he had derived from the window
tax. He did not object to the extension of the house tax,
but reasons were urged against it, for it was said the effect
of laying it on 101. houses would be to disfranchise many
of the Parliamentary electors. He said he could not believe
the axiom which the right hon, gentleman had laid down,
again and again, that direct taxation must bo as universal
as indirect taxation ; and, for this reason, because it was
absolutely impossible. Indirect taxation pressed harder
on the working man than on those above him, and to lay
direct taxation on him also would be gross injustice. Mr.
Mill was of that opinion, and thought that, by fixing such
a minimum limit to direct taxation as now existed, the evil
would be corrected. It was a judicious admixture then of
direct and indirect taxation which was wanted, and it was,
no doubt, a nice problem to adjust the proportion. (Cheers.)
The alteration, however, proposed by the right hon. gentle-
man, would relieve the large capitalist, the merchant, and
manufacturer, at the cost of the poor man and the small far-
mer, who were to bear an extended rate. (Cheers.) That
was his regard for the industrious classes. (Cheers,) As
to the house tax, if any one proposed to deal with it in
the view of direct taxation, he must keep it light and
popular. Increase that kind of taxation now to its nearly
full extent, and when war arose, and it was. impossible to
increase the indirect taxation, he should have no resource
for the defence of the country. By putting twice as much
in the shape of a house tax upon the people as they had
paid in the way of window tax, they would not bo able to
maintain it. But he would not detain the house longer at
that hour of the night. (Loud cheers.) He felt convinced
that the right hon. gentleman was dealing with the taxation
of the country on a most vicious principle ; for, with
6,000,0001. of tea duty, and ,000,000/. of malt tax, he
Was making reductions that would not produce any per-
ceptible benefit to the consumer, and was betaking
himself to direct taxation as a substitute. He (Sir
C. Wood) would say to the Government, let them
give up the house tax and the malt tax—(hear, hear)—
then they would have a budget which might be swallowed.
(Hear.) They need not be ashamed of taking back their
budget. (Laughter.) Let them take their Christmas holi-
days to consider what they would do. It was obvious they
had not considered their budget, or that they recklessly
abused the knowledge they. possessed. (Hear.) Nothing
could be so bad as the budget they had proposed, which
ws a
hc r
hfi c eedn
eae
arreavgeendu e
directwhich t
anxobat
ny wt wished
tampered
r te o benefit
with
tbhye,
credit of the country, and was a direct tarnish upon its
honourable name. (Loud cries of " Hear.")
On the motion of Mr. C. BRUCE, the debate was then
adjourned

Sir G. PECHELL presented a petition from tho High
Constable of Brighton, on behalf of an association for pro-
curing a charter of Incorporation for that town, praying to
be exempt from the schedule of assessment.
The petition was received, and at the suggestion of Lord
J. MANNERS, its consideration was ordered to be deferred
till after tho Christmas recess.
The house then, at 25 minutes to one, adjourned.