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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBERII, 1852.

receiving-house whether general Post-office business
can be transacted at all these receiving-houses, and, if
, the number in each place at which that can be
transacted showing the proportion the population of each
place bears to every such receiving-house or branch-office;
the number of offices in each place at which money-
order business can be transacted, and the proportion the
population of each place bears to every such office ; the
average number of letters delivered daily in each of the
above-mentioned towns ; also the number of letter-
carriers in each town to deliver these letters, and
also the number of deliveries daily in each town :
And of the name of every one employed in the Post-
office of Glasgow ; the number of years each person has
been in the service : salary- of each, and sums, if any,
derived from fees, stating the nature of such fees ; na-
ture of the duties performed by each ; whether there is
a scale of salaries for length of service, and, if so, the
particulars of it ; showing the highest salary that can be
obtained by length of service only, and the time to be
served to obtain that salary ; whether there is a super-
annuation allowance ; gross revenue of the office for
each of the last ten years, including amount of postage
stamps sold through the Stamp-office ; number of letters
for one week of each month in each year for a like pe-
riod ; number :and amount of money orders paid and
issued in each of the last ten years ; also the commission
in each year ; number of clerks employed in each year.
distinguishing the number engaged in each department.
Agreed to.
REGISTRATION OF LANDS.
Mr. COWPER gave notice that on! Monday next he
should move for leave to bring in a bill for the Registra-
tion of Land Sales.
THE BUDGET.
On the order of the day for going into committee on
Ways and Means,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the house was placed in a
most extraordinary position. For his own part, his own
constituents were not anxious that the house should go
into committee at all on the Government statement ;
and perhaps he should be called factious for doing his
duty on this occasion. But he had been called factious
by every Government that existed for some years—(a
laugh)—and it should not deter him from doing his duty
now. (Hear, hear.) The fact was, neither he nor his
constituents wanted the budget of the Government—(a
laugh)—and therefore he should move that they do not
go into committee. (Hear, hear.) He thought that
was the best and most proper course to take,
seeing that the right honourable gentleman.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that a deci-
sion upon one of his resolutions was to be considered a
decision upon the whole, and therefore any decision to
be come to ought to be arrived at before they got into
committee. (Hear.) No equivalent whatever was given
for the doubling of the house tax ; for while the tax-
payer was treated with an extra cup of tea or a pot of
beer a-week, he was to have his other burthens doubled.
(A laugh.) He would not stand this ; and in spite of
being considered as doing that which would hurt the
feelings of the Government, he must oppose the Budget
without more ado. (A laugh.) The house had been
told that the window tax was repealed from sanitary mo-
tives ; but it was no such thing. For thirty years
public were opposed to it, and it was not until the Go-
vernment of the day was satisfied that it could be main-
tained no longer that it was repealed. (Hear, hear.) It
would be a waste of time to discuses the question of the
honse tax ; and if there was to be a vote of no confidence
taken, the proper time for doing it was now, before go-
ing into committee. (Hear, hear.) He should therefore
move that the Speaker do not leave the chair. (Hear.)
The amendment having been seconded,
Mr. WALTER said he should vote for the amend-
ment, but at the same time he denied that this question
ought to be taken as a vote of want of confidence.
There was no parallel between the case of the present
Government and that of Sir Robert Peel in
1841 ; there was no deficit in the revenue, but, on the
contrary, there was a surplus, and consequently there
was no necessity for doubling the house tax. (Cheers.)
He did not object to the house tax in the abstract, but
the necessities of the country did not require its being
doubled, and the proposal of the Government ought to
be abandoned. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ALCOCK was opposed to doubling the house tax,
but was decidedly in favour of the proposed repeal of the
malt tax and the tea duties, and he should be sorry to
see the present Government defeated. (Hear, hear.) He
was for repealing the whole of the Malt Tax ;
but rather than get nothing, he was quite willing to ac-
cept of half ; and he was disposed on that account to
continue his support to the Government. (Hear, hear.)
It was as unjust to tax malt as to tax coals ; and for the
sake of the consumer, he demanded that the malt tax
should at once be repealed. (Hear, hear.) It could be
done without doubling the house tax, by either extend-
ing the income tax or the probate and legacy duty to
real property ; and he called upon the Government totake
that course. At present the income tax was only paid upon
12,000,0001., whereas it ought to be paid upon
400,000,0001. He was quite ready to extend the income
tax to the poor man with 12s. a-week, at the rate of
3 per cent., provided Government was ready to abandon
all the indirect taxations that were levied upon articles
of daily consumption. Nor was he opposed to extending
the income tax to Ireland—indeed he was informed Ire-
land was anxious for it—(a laugh)—and he did not won-
der at it, when he fremembered the saving her people
would have a right to claim in the shape of a remission
of indirect taxation. Why, at present they were paying
taxes at the rate of 20 or 30 per cent. instead of three,
and the sooner the house agreed to abandon this vicious
system of taxation, the better it would be for all parties.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. B. LYTTON would not follow the hon. gentle-
man through all the points on which he had touched.
It was true the whole subject of the budget was before
the house, but he should not advert to those parts on
which they were generally agreed— such, for instance,
as the measures connected with the colonial or shipping
interest, with which others were far more competent to
deal than himself. With respect to the income and
property tax, the question was so large in itself, and,
with the amendment of his hon. friend the member for
Montrose, became so complicated by the variety, not
only of its details, but also of its principles, that it would
be impossible to discuss it fairly except upon some later
occasion specially set apart for the purpose. But, as
the main exception to the budget had been taken upon
the proposed extension of the area of that tax, it was
as well the country should be aware that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, so far as its extension was concerned,
had acted, not in harsh, but in mitigated conformity
with all the most valuable evidence taken before the
committee upon the proposed property and income
tax, and in conformity with that unquestioned champion
of all the industrious classes, the hon. member for Mon-
trose. (Loud cheers.) He would not touch upon the
question raised the other night by the right hon. mem-
ber for the University of Oxford as to how far the speech
of Mr. Pitt could induce the house to believe that it
would be a fraud upon the property of the fundholder to
diminish the tax upon incomes derived from profits.
(Hear, hear.) He took it for granted that they were
agreed that they could no longer tax in the same degree
an income which, without a fault of his own, a man
might lose to-morrow, and an income which a man de-
rived from the capital he enjoyed during life, and which
he might, perhaps, bequeath to his children. (Hear,
hear.) But this suggested matter for serious considera-
tion ; for they had heard the other night speeches of two
gentlemen so pre-eminent in that house, that one or other
must be a leading member of any Administration which
could replace the present—the speech of the right hon.
member for the University of Oxford, in which he de-
clared that the distinction they wished to enforce would
be positive dishonesty, and the speech of the noble lord
the member for London, in which he declared his sense
of the great danger that would arise if they departed from
the primciple of the income tax as established by successive
Parliaments. This was matter for reflection ; and this
question suggested itself upon it, " How far would it be
desirable to destroy the first Government which sought
to establish a distinction so important to the industrious
portion of their constituents, and trust that principle to
the divided counsels or uncertain purpose of any Go-
vernment likely to succeed ?" (Hear, hear.) Now he
came to the staple question before the house—he meant
the indirect duties weich they proposed to reduce, and
the direct house tax, which they proposed to double.
He must say that if any philanthropist were to desire to
confer some special boon upon the industrious classes,
the duties upon malt and tea were precisely those which
he would select ; and, though he had seen it stated that
it would have been better to have preferred the reduction
of some other Excise duty than that of malt, such as
paper, or soap—(hear, hear, from a portion of the Oppo-
sition)—yet that was said by the very party who had
always contended that the first articles which should be
chosen for a reduced duty were those which affected the
physical sustenance of the people ; and, though some
learned chemists had told us of sawdust being a good sub-
stitute for potatoes, they had never induced the people to
eat paper or drink soap. (A laugh.) His hon. friend the
member for Montrose had saidmost forcibly upon a former
debate on the malt tax, that to whatever source the
went for revenue they ought not to take it from the
beverage of the working man. "He had cheap bread
and cheap beef," said his hon. friend, "why not cheap
beer ?" (Hear, hear.) That was a sentiment worthy of
his hon. and respected friend. (Hear, hear.) But a
Chancellor of the Exchequer was not actuated by bene-
volence alone. Ile could only indulge in philanthropy
as a political economist ; and therefore in the selection of
duties to reduce he would look to those in which he could
remove the obstacles to commercial energies which re-
produced national wealth. Therefore he would select
the tea duty, because it tended at least to augment the
trade with China, and to promote the interchange of our
goods, Directly, it was a benefit to the consumer ; in-
directly, it was a benefit to Manchester and tod
Liverpool,
and to our merchants and manufacturers ;
an the coun-
try gentlemen sincerely rejoiced to think so. (Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial side of the house.) Now let
them look at the malt tax, because it was impossible
to have heard the speech of the hon. member for
Nottingham, and the cheers which followed it, dto see
what was written and spoken out of doors, not to per-
ceive that it was the reduction of the malt-tax which
formed so prominent a feature in the eyes of hon. gen-
tlemen opposite. Did not the reduction of the malt du-
ties rest pr ecisely upon the same principle as the reduc-
tion of the: tea duties? (Hear, hear.) He must grant
that we die not obtain anything like the same proper,

tionate advantage from the abolition of half the tax as
we should from its total repeal. He granted that there
still was retained all the costly and vexatious machinery
of the Excise, and that by retaining one half of the tax
we did still cripple the farmer in the direction of his
capital, the fattening of his cattle, and the nature of the
grain which he should produce. Rut what then ? It was
a bold step in the right direction. But, considering
the state of the revenue, and, what upon his side of
the house never were forgotten, the claims and interests
of other parties, he must frankly tell the Chancellor of
the Exchequer that so long as any revenue was drawn
from that duty; so long was the farmer impeded in the
direction of his industry and capital, and so long the
country party would endeavour to obtain, through the
means of free trade, fair and impartial treatment for the
farmer. Still, he submitted to his hon. friend the
member for North Yorkshire, and to those who agreed
with him, as he (Sir E. B. Lytton) did, in desiring the
total repeal of the malt duty, that at least this advantage
would be gained, that as he diminished the amount of
the tax, so he lessened the great financial difficulty of
getting rid of it altogether. Supposing it were doubted
what benefit the proposed measure would be to the far-
mer, no man could be absurd enough to deny that the
abolition of half the tax would cheapen the price of beer,
and that no monopoly of brewers could altogether defeat
the intention of the Legislature in the face of public
opinion. If, indeed, such an attempt should be made,
all would unite in order to procure a different system of
licensing. (Hear, hear.) He remembered that the hon.
member for Derby, a great authority upon this subject,
an eminent brewer and a Reformer, had brought forward
the reduction of half this tax, and had distinctly stated
that the effect would be to give good beer to the people
at a much more moderate price. He (Sir E. B. Lytton)
thought he might fairly calculate the reduction in the
retail price of the superior kinds of beer at id. per
quart. (" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Since the
budget had been propounded, he had taken the op-
portunity of speaking to some persons eminent in
the trade, and he had been informed by them that
such would be the consequence. (Oh.) At all events,
let hon. gentlemen remember their own arguments upon
the corn laws—that though they could not say to what
extent the repeal would lower' the price of bread, all
they could do was to legislate in such a way that the
price ought to be reduced. (Hear.) The reduction of
this tax, therefore, was directly a benefit to the con-
sumer, and indirectly.to the farmer, just as the reduc-
tion of the tea duty was a benefit directly to the con-
sumer and indirectly to the merchant and manufacturer.
To show how this would benefit the farmer, he would
read a short extract from that great authority upon
finance and free trade, Mr. M'Culloch. That gentle-
man said, that though the malt tax fell directly on the
consumer-1-

"Still, however, it must be admitted that it is indi-
rectly especially injurious to the agriculturist . . .
Supposing a high duty were laid on calicoes and broad-
cloths, is it not clear that it would be a serious injury
to the manufacturers affected by it? In fact, a duty of
3d. a square yard was imposed previously to 1831 upon
all printed cottons, which, like the duty on malt, fell
directly on the consumer ; but it was notwithstand-
ing, shown that it was indirectly most injurious to
the producer
well-founded representations, the duty on printed cot-
tons, which produced 600,000/. a year, was repealed
in 1830, and the subsequent increase of the trade
has sufficiently testified the policy of the measure. The
case of the malt duty is precisely analogous ; and most
part of the statements that were made to show the
pernicious effects of the duty on printed cottons over
the manufacturer might, 'mutatis mutandis, be applied
to illustrate the influence of the malt tax over agri-
culture."

It might be said that that would go only to prove the
advantage of the total repeal ; but subsequently Mr.
M'Culloch, despairing of the possibility of the total re-
peal, suggested the proposition then before the house of
the reduction of the duty by one-half. (Loud cheers.)
Well, but because this question was accompanied in-
directly with benefit to the farmer, and with a double
house tax, they were told that it was a question of town
against country. No, it was a question of free trade
against restriction—a question whether they would re-
fuse to lower the price of an article of popular suste-
nance, and remove some restrictions upon industry and
capital, because the measure was accompanied by a direct
tax, which all political economists had recommended,
even if there were no malt tax. (Hear, and Oh ! from
the Opposition.) He suspected that what deprived the
reduction of the malt tax of all benefit in the eyes of
honourable gentlemen was precisely the reason that
ought to induce them to prefer it, because it removed
some weight from that class which had the most cause
to apprehend competition. If it were to inflict some
hardship upon the farmer, and all the country were
banded against it, then, probably, the measure would
rise in the eyes of honourable gentlemen, and all the
talk would be of the selfishness of squires and farmers,
who refused to cheapen beer to their poor countrymen.
(Hear, hear, and oh, oh !) Better at once assert
the doctrine, that because the farmer considered he
was partially distressed, he should not therefore be im-
partially relieved, and, because there was unrestricted
competition, he still should be restricted in the manu-
facuture of his barley ? (Hear, hear.) Now, what was
barley ? The very grain for which England was most
famous. In wheat we were surpassed, or, at all events,
equalled. In barley we were unrivalled ; yet that un-
rivalled crop was specially selected to be obstructed and
discouraged by impediments in the way of the employ-
ment of industry in its own natural direction. This
made it the more injurious to the farmer, and it was a
most precise and elaborate rejection of one of the most
fertile sources of revenue which Providence had bestowed
on this country. If gentlemen opposite did not object
so much to the reduction of the malt tax, though, per-
haps, they might prefer its total repeal, yet, they ob-
jected to substitute a tax upon the householder for the
benefit of the farmer ; but that was only saying, in other
words, that they objected to the further extension of
the principles of free trade. (Hear.) Well, now, what
was it that they objected to in. the house tax ? Did they
object to the tax itself ? They could hardly do that, be-
cause it was a tax which had been specially selected by
their own authorities as one which they thought might be
justly extended almost indefinitely. Mr. Mill said that of
all taxes the house tax was one of the fairest, because it
fell upon a man in proportion to his establishment. Mr.
M'Culloch anticipated the very measures before the
house, for he advised the reduction of the tea-duties, and
the malt tryx one-half, and the imposition of a house tax ;
and this lAA, too, at a time when the window tax still
existed. (Hear, hear.) The only point worthy of con-
sideration which had been thrown out by hon. members
opposite, was that which had been suggested by the hon.
member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams). The principle
on which he proceeded appeared to be this—indirect
taxes were to be reduced, and a direct tax was necessary
to make up the deficiency ; what would be the best to
adopt ? The hon. member suggested that instead of a
house tax they should impose a legacy duty on realised
property. Now, he (Sir Bulwer Lytton) would frankly
own that the feeling out of doors on this subject was so
strong and so reasonable, that if they continued the
legacy duties they would, sooner or later, be obliged to
extend them to all property whatever. He granted, then,
that. Now, he begged them. to grant them this :
What tax was least objection able ? He would show
them that on all principles the tax which they proposed
was more objectionable than the one before the house.
Not only almost all economists, but all educated men,
were agreed that taxes ought to fall, not upon capital,
but expenditure. When they laid a tax upon a
man's expenditure, they stimulated him to a course
of saving, as it were, in order to make up the amount
of the tax collected ; but when a tax fell upon capital,
this stimulus was not given, the deficiency was not
repaired, and the loss was one which fell to be deducted
from the wealth of the nation. But, of all taxes upon
capital, the worst was that which directly taxed the ca-
pital itself ; and, therefore, Mr. Ricardo had singled out
the legacy duty for unqualified condemnation. Mr. Ri-
cardo argued thus—Suppose 1,0001. were left to him as
a legacy, and 1001. of it were taken from him by way of
duty, he should consider that he had got a legacy of
9001. only, and should have no particular motive to make
up for the loss by a reduction of expenditure. But if he
received a legacy of 1,0001., and 1001. were afterwards
taken from him in the name of various taxes, such as
those upon houses, horses, wines, servants, &c., the result
would in all probability be that he would decrease his ex-
penditure to that amount, and the national wealth would
remain unimpaired. So that the legacy duty was a tax
bad upon principle—bad, indeed, upon all the principles
founded on by hon, members opposite, and surely it
would not be wise to increase so bad a tax. And
when it was proposed to increase the stamp duty upon
the transfer of landed property, he would ask hon.
members to consider who the landlords were whose
taxation it was thus proposed to increase ? Were they
a body of Leviathans, wallowing in wealth ? On the
contrary, it had been proved that throughout the
country their incomes did not exceed on the average
150/. a-year ; and, as this would of course include many
whose incomes were much lower than 1501., would they
it right to lay the screw upon those small pro-
prietors ? Seeing, therefore, that they had no other tax
except the house-tax which was approved of on every
kind of principle, and by all the political economists,
what was their objection to it? They objected to it
either because of the extension of the area,—the bring-
ing it down to 101. householders,—or because of the
doubling of the tax. With respect to the extension of
the area, no man, he thought, could deny that the same
principle which was applied to the income and property
tax should be applied even more rigidly to the tax
upon houses. They should only exempt the wages of
unskilled labour, or cases in which it would be unsafe
or impossible to collect the tax. But, then, they
had been told this tax was to interfere with and in-
jure the electoral franchise. That was a very grave
consideration— (cheers) ;—but there was before the house
a consideration yet more grave, and it was this :—The
101.-householders formed the most important portion of
the electoral constituency, and it became a matter of very
great danger if that class which could exercise so great
an influence over all the taxation of that house, should
stand altogether exempted—(cheers from the Ministerial
side)—from a tax which they had the power to inflict
upon other classes. (Cheers.) Now, if the house re-
solved to sanction and enforce that principle—a prin-
ciple by which all the ancient republics were at first
corrupted and then destroyed—they sanctioned the
principle which justified the people of France in their
preference of an absolute Government—they sanctioned
a confiscation of property for the benefit of numbers.
He would now say one word as to the farmers, so far as
they were concerned. He wished gentlemen could dis-
miss from their minds that spectre which they called
" compensation," for, if compensation were sought
for in the reduction of half the malt tax, it would in-
deed be a most miserable dole, unworthy of that
House of Commons. But he would grant the re-
lief was not delusive—that it was a real and prac-
tical relief to agriculture, and that he would show,

if the house were in committee on the subject. The
relief was real, though it was not large ; but it
was not always the amount of relief given, but the
mode and spirit in which it was given—(cheers)—which
tended to allay disaffection and to reconcile the sufferers
to that crisis which the change of the national policy
might compel them to undergo. They felt that when
they had to deal with Ireland. One Government might
do a little more than another to remove the difficulties
which beset that country, but it was the animus—the
desire to do something—which made all the difference
between the Government the people were prepared to
approve and the Government they were led to detest.
The same was the case with the British Parliament.
They were all moved by their feelings. Men were not
mere leathern bags or strong boxes, but living beings;
with blood in their veins, and hearts in their bosoms,
who could appreciate kind attentions, and he did entreat
the house not to deal with a great class of their fellow-
countrymen as if they were their enemies. They were
not only political economists, but English citizens, and,
supposing that all agricultural distress was unreal: and
exaggerated—supposing that the farmers were the only
persons in the world who were never without gold in
their pockets—it could not be denied that they believed
they were distressed. They asserted they had been in-
jured, and that impression tended to produce disaffec-
tion, and it was wise, as a matter of policy, to remove
such an impression from the minds of a large body of
the people. What was the character of the class to whom
he referred ? They were the very men among whom
in times of danger, and in the case of war, this country
had hitherto found that chief defence of nations which
consisted in fervent loyalty and love for their native soil.
(Cheers.) It was seldom that the removal of disaffec-
tion could be purchased at too dear a rate, but now,
when they could purchase it so cheaply, and at a positive
benefit to the community, how could they hesitate ?
(Hear, hear.) But the fact was that behind all these
questions there pressed another which forced itself upon
the irresistible consideration of the house. He was the
last person to impute to hon. gentlemen opposite a single
factious or unworthy motive, but when they had been so
severe upon the inconsistencies of hon. gentlemen on
his (the Ministerial) side of the house, he might be al-
lowed respectfully to ask whether consistency of princi-
ple, independently of party, had been precisely that
virtue of which hon. gentlemen opposite had set the ex-
ample ? (Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Hon. gen-
tlemen opposite first demanded from the Government a
recognition of free trade as the guide of their future
policy, and, no sooner was this concession made, than
the gravamen of all the charges made by hon. gentlemen
opposite against the Government was that very conces-
sion. (Hear, hear.) Surely never before did men who
were in earnest for a principle evince so much anger at
having it conceded 1 (Cheers and laughter.) Yet now,
having specially invited the Government, by the resolu-
tion of his hon. friend the member for Wol-
verhampton (Mr. Villers), to consent to a further ex-
tension of free trade, when measures in that direction
were prepared, and accompanied by a direct tax so
sound in its principle that not a single political economist
could be produced against it, hon. gentlemen opposite
seemed disposed to prevent those measures from being
carried out for the benefit of the country. (Hear, hear.)
It was wholly impossible to describe this inconsistency
to paltry motives, but he ascribed it only to that
honourable ambition which induced hon. gentlemen
opposite to wish to substitute for the present Adminis-
tration a Government composed of men whom they pre-
ferred. (Cheers and laughter.) He wished, before he
sat down, to say a very few words with reference to the
great body of gentlemen on his side of the house, whose
adhesion to free trade had not been very graciously re-
ceived. It was the opinion that he had always enter-
tained with regard to the total repeal of the corn laws,
which had gradually enstranged him from a party to
which he had always belonged, and to which he might
say, without presumption, that he had rendered some
trifling service, and among which he still recognised,
not only private friends, but politicians of spotless in-
tegrity and of consummate talent and experience.
(Hear, hear.) But it was not upon that single question
alone that'he had made the transfer of his very humble
support to the party and the policy represented by
the present Government. He did not do so while the
late Administration lasted. (Hear.) He did not do
so until that Administration—he did not wish to say it
with offence—died from its own exhaustion (a laugh) ;
not until the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), look-
ing around at the state of parties, could see no other
statesman but Lord Derby whom he could suggest to
her Majesty as his successor (Hear, and cheers) ; and
the condition of affairs at home, and, still more, abroad,
induced him (Sir E. Lytton) to believe that it might be
for the welfare, and perhaps for the safety of the coun-
try, to give Lord Derby's Government a fair and a cor-
dial trial. (Cheers.) He had done so with a full
allowance for all the difficulties the Government would
have to encounter, and with a firm belief that it would
be right to consider the case of the class in which long-
continued distress had produced a deep-seated sense of
injustice, with that deference to public opinion which
Lord Derby had frankly expressed as soon as he entered
upon office. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He (Sir E.
Lytton) must say that in that school in which he had
learned constitutional liberty it never was considered a
disgrace for a Minister of England to regulate, not in-
deed his private doctrines, but his political measures,
according to the opinions of the time (hear, hear, from
the Ministerial side), and he certainly had not expected
to hear such a principle objected to bythe leaders of a party
who had threatened to change the constitution itselfin order
to bring Parliament still more under the influence of the
popular control. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.)
The course which had been taken by the Government
had certainly confirmed his expectations ; and he now
tendered his support to them, not on any party conside-
rations, but simply in consequence of the disposition they
had evinced to propose general measures for the improve-
ment of the laws, and for advancing the welfare of the
people. He did not allude merely to the reforms of the
Court of Chancery, nor to the programme of useful mea-
sures announced in her Majesty's gracious speech, nor
even to the measures now before the house, sincerely as
he approved of them ; but he looked also to the liberal
and enlightened speech of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer the other evening. He then heard for the first time
a pledge from a Minister of the Crown for economy and
retrenchment, and the implied promise of a large admin-
istrative reform. He saw in that speech a capacity to
deal with one of the most complicated of all social
question—that connected with criminal punishments—
(hear, hear) ; he saw a general understanding of what
he conceived to be the great want of this time, for he
disposed to favour a policy which, while it would be
be-
lieved that the great bodconservative of the great principles of the constitution,
y of the intelligent public were
would still effect valuable and practical reforms. (Rear,
hear.) The Government had shown already, by such
measures and by such sentiments, that they did not
come into office as the exclusive advocates of a single
class, or the supporters of a retrograde policy (hear,
hear), and the more they could mitigate the sufferings of
any class, whether commercial or agricultural, the more
worthy they would be of the support of the House of
Commons, to which every section of the community that
contributed to the supplies had the right to come for the
redress of grievances. (Cheers.) If they could so contrive
that no large portion of our producers should be excluded
from that prosperity which reigned before their eyes, the
more they would unite all classes and interests to co-
operate with them in that calm and continuous progress
in which it was the duty of every Minister to guide the
people of this country in the highest ranks of European
civilization. His desire to support the measures which
had been proposed for their own intrinsic merits was in-
creased by the satisfaction of thinking that his one vote
among many might serve to continue the present Govern-
ment in its career of useful and liberal legislation. All
the causes of dissension which before rendered a Ministry
constituted of gentlemen now on the opposite benches so
weak in spite of the honesty, virtue, and
genius
presided over it, still continued to exist, and in his mind
would still prevent that unity and firmness of purpose
acrdo of the
ineffective,
menw
h comp
osed, and of the premier who
which would alone render effectual the desire Of the late
Ministry to remove abuses, and which would alone pre-
serve--perhaps against the attacks of their own ablest
supporters—that balance between safe reforms and
hazardous experiments, on which, in his conscience, ho
believed we must depend for the continuance of our pros-
perity and for the stability of this empire. (Loud and
protracted cheering.)
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he should have been
sorry to deprive the hon. baronet who had just sat down
of the satisfaction of knowing that he had widened the
question at issue—that, passing from the motion that
the Speaker do leave the chair, he had entered into a
detailed discussion of all the most important items in
the Budget, and then entered into an elaborate and elo-
quent defence of the Government of which he was not a
member, and a spirited vindication.of his own character,
which was impugned by no man. (Cheers and laughter.)
But, on the part of the house and on the part of
the principles which regulated the conduct of public
business, he oould not refrain from pointing out, that
if the house really intended to make progress towards
a decision upon the measures before them, it was im-
portant, at whatever sacrifice of their own orate-
(aeasluraugesh)in their natural order.
—to approach the con-
rsoii denaetisrhaatPitreegn7oesusfne dsts,ht hnsees—entirely declined with his hon. friend
thatththe
t hvote no
membere for Nottingham,
beforetting ham , to accede to the doctrine
them was to be understood
as a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Govern-
ment. It might suit the convenience of persons or of
parties—sometimes the one and sometimes the other—
to attach to discussions respecting the taxation of the
people the character of confidence or no confidence de-
bates ; but nothing could more tend to corrupt the House
of Commons than to allow its decision for or against the
public taxes to be so influenced. He had ever held that
the primary duty of the house, its highest, and, perhaps,
its elementary, certainly its most ancient and most im-
portant duty, was to provide the means required for
carrying on the public service ; and they could not
arrive at a safe conclusion as to what would be the best
for the public service, if they were thus to be
diverted from the intrinsic merits of the proposi-
tion before them. The question now before them was,
whether or not they should entertain the financial
propositions of the Government, and then to pro-
ceed to consider them in committee in their proper
order. After what had taken place on Tuesday, it was
impossible for to refuse to go into committee ; and he,
therefore, could not support the hon. member for Fins-
bury. But, if he consented to go into committee, he
did so under protest, and that for two reasons. The
first was, that for the first time within his recollection a
budget had been presented to them on the part of the
Government, in which he presumed to say it was not
professed to provide for the service of the year one single
farthing beyond what was necessary to meet the ex-

penses. (Hear). The right hon. gentleman the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, it was true, had purported to
show, in the figures he submitted to the house, a surplus
of 400,000/. ; but that 400,0001., which he applied to the
services of the year, was (not money raised for the ser-
vice of the yew:, It was simply so much debt. In former
years, money had been borrowed for the purpose of lend-
ing it for ryablic works, and when that money came in
again, wliat ought to be done with it ? It was a ques-
tion lye was ashamed to ask. (Cheers.) The money
borrowed for public works ought, when returned, to be
aprAied to the extinction of the debt incurred for those
pablic works ; but instead of that, the right hon. gentle-
man applied this 400,0001. of debt so repaid to the ser-
vice of the year, and was by it enabled to show a surplus
of 400,0001. He protested again, that he thought it
the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to submit a
scheme of estimates to provide for the services of the
year beyond the minimum which 'those services required.
On a former evening he took the liberty of requesting
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the obser-
vations which he (Mr. Gladstone) then made. The right
hon. gentleman, however, did not think fit to do so,
but gave a negative answer upon the spot. That an-
swer rendered it necessary for him (Mr. Gladstone) to
state afresh the grounds of his protest against the re-
missions proposed by the right lion. gentleman. He
(Mr. Gladstone) held that the House of Commons had
no right to sanction the remission of any taxation
until they were certain what amount of money would be
required for the service of the current year. It would be
wrong for the right hon. gentleman to call upon the
house to agree to his financial scheme until the house
had recognised afresh the principle of the income tax.
Sir Robert Peel obtained a recognition of that principle
before he asked the house to agree to his budget of 1842.
At that period Sir R. Peel was pressed from all quarters
to proceed with the discussion of the tariff before he
asked the house to consider the question of the income
tax • but he steadily refused to take that course. It was
said that he was insincere with respect. to the tariff, and
merely wanted, by artifice, to secure the imposition of
an income tax ; but he repelled, as he was entitled to re-
pel, those suspicions with scorn. Sir R. Peel obtained
from that house a second reading of his income tax before
the committee proceeded to discuss a remission of taxes.
That was, a sound principle, and one in favour of which he
(Mr. Gladstone) was desirous of recording his vote. But
he could quote other authority in favour of the protest
which he was about to record against the course pro-
posed to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer ;
and this would not be the first time in which such a pro-
test was recorded in the books of the House of Com-
mons. They had this matter discussed at a recent
period, and that period was the very last year-1851.
He would state to the house briefly the circumstances of
the two cases. In 1851 the income tax was renewed for
a single year, and in 1851 there was a surplus of
2,000,0001. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer pro-
posed to the house, with the income tax about to expire
after nine months, that they should deal with certain
branches of the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed to exchange a window tax for a house tax, and in
so doing to sacrifice a sum of 600,0001. upon the service of
the year. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he was correct
in the statement which he had made. The window tax
yielded 950,000/., and the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer proposed to substitute it for a house tax which
would yield only 350,0001. He therefore. proposed to
sacrifice a sum of 600,0001., and to retain a surplus of
1,400,0001. Under those circumstances, a motion was
made in that house, which was supported by himself
(Mr. Gladstone) (to the reasonableness of which he still
adhered), the terms of which he would read to the
house. On the 30th of June, 1851, the following re-
solution was submitted as a condemnation of the con-
duct of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer :
"That, according to the estimated produce of the exist-
ing taxes submitted to this house by the Chancellor of
th Exchequer, it appears that a surplus revenue may
be expected in the present year to the extent of about
2,000,0001.; that in the revenue so estimated is included
a sum exceeding 5,000,000/. derived from the tax on in-
come, with respect to which an inquiry has been directed
to be made by a committee of this house, on the result
of whose labours may depend the future renewal or mo-
dification of that important impost; that in this provi-
sional state of the financial arrangements of the coun-
try, it appears to this house to be most consistent with a
due regard to the maintenance of the public credit and
the exigencies of the public service, not to make any
material sacrifice of the public income which might
prevent such changes as might be advisable in other
branches of taxation." That motion, he believed, was
moved as arr amendment to the question that the Speaker
leave the chair, for the purpose of the house resolv-
ing itself into a committee on the house tax ; and
the principle laid down was, that because the in-
come tax had only been renewed for a year, it would
not be a justifiable proceeding to sacrifice 600,0001.
of taxation, although there might, even with that remis-
sion, be left in the hands of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer a surplus of 1,400,0001. There were other
items of remission proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but they were altogether of a trifling cha-
racter. He was not sure whether a reduction on coffee
was proposed—at all events, the total amount of the re-
missions proposed did not amount to any considerable
sum ; and the surplus would have been 1,200,000/.,
it
not 1,400,0001. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) wanted to
draw a comparison between the conduct pursued by the
Government of last year and that of the present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. Gladstone) had shown
the house what strict and elevated notions the house pro-
fessed to entertain on this subject last year. He had
shown them that the house was not satisfied with the
late Government, because they would only retain some
1,200,0001 or 1,400,0001., with an income tax renewed
for a twelvemonth. And how did they now stand ? They
stood thus—the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer showed that, for the year 1853-4,
there would be a surplus of but 900,0001., and would
the house, which protested against the remission of
taxes when there was a surplus of 1,200,0001. or
1,400,000/., but when the question of the income tax
was unsettled, permit the right lion. gentleman to remit
taxes when he had but a surplus of 900,0001., and had
not obtained the consent of the house to the renewal of
the income tax. Let the house compare the taxes
which the right hon. gentleman proposed to impose
with those which he proposed to remit. He (Mr. Glad-
stone) would take them on the right hon. gentleman's
own estimate, without at all questioning the justice or
accuracy of that estimate. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer proposed to surrender, for the year 1853-4,
1,000,0001. on the malt duty. He (Mr. Gladstone)
confessed he thought that was a low estimate, but he
would take it as the right hon. gentleman gave it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also proposed to sur-
render 400,0001. upon tea. And, in consequence of
that sacrifice, lie was going to impose a new house tax,
the amount of which would be 1,000,000/. annually
but, as this year would only yield half that sum,
viz., 500,0001., the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
going to remit 1,400,0001. for 500,0001., whereby he
would part with 900,0001., which was the entire surplus
which he expected to have in hand. And now, let the
house recollect that it was the right hon. gentleman
himself who had made the motion which he (Mr. Glad-
stone) had quoted. (Loud cheers.) It was the right hon.
gentleman himself who laid down the 'principle— that,
with the question of an income tax pending, the house
would not be justified in reducing the surplus to even so
low a figure as 1,200,0001. It was the same right hon.
gentleman who now, with an income tax pending, re-
fused to take a vote upon it in the first instance, and in-
sisted upon the house proceeding with his budget, which
involved a surrender of 1,400,0001. against the imposi-
tion of a new tax, which would yield no more than
500,0001. during the coming year. And therefore, in
the protest which he (Mr. Gladstone) ventured humbly
to submit to the house, he was entirely supported
both by the doctrine and practice of the right hon.
gentleman himself. Now, the hon. baronet who had
just sat down said that a great many taunts and jeers
had been thrown out against gentlemen wholhad changed
their opinions with regard to free trade. He (Mr. Glad-
stone) must confess that, as far as the debates of that
house were concerned, he had hoped that there was a
great absence of such taunts and jeers. (Laughter, and
cries of " Oh, oh !" on the Ministerial side of the house.)
All he could say was that, for himself, whether success-
ful or not, he was not the judge, lie had striven to avoid
the use of them. (General applause.) He was quite
sure that if they had escaped from him, or from any
other person, it had been from inadvertance and from
human infirmity. But he must say that there were cir-
cumstances (and especially circumstances under which
the Government was going wrong) which rendered it im-
perative on the house to remind the leaders of the Go-
verment of the principles which they themselves had laid
down. He read the other day an amusing report—whether
correct or not he knew not—of the proceedings at a
local election, in which one of the candidates complained
of the other that lie had resorted to an unworthy
artifice, that of referring to his antecedents. (Laugh-
ter.) Now he (Mr. Gladstone, begged to assure the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not for the pur-
pose of resorting to an artifice, worthy or unworthy, that
he referred to that right hon. gentleman s antecedents.
He did so, because he wanted to point out that doctrine
—a sound one, as he (Mr. Gladstone) thought—which
he propounded last year, and upon which he felt so
strongly, that lie felt it necessary to propose it in the
shape of a motion, and take a division of the house upon
it, viz., the doctrine as to the duty of that house securing
its ways and means before it voted away existing taxes,
was the identical doctrine which he (Mr. Gladstone) re-
spectfully submitted to him for his acceptance on Mon-
day night, but which he then—he (Mr. Gladstone) had
no reason to say contemptuously, but he must say sum-
marily—rejected. (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It ap-
pears to ine, sir, that the address of the right hon. gentleman
the member for the University of Oxford has a tendency to
facilitate that progress of the public business, which I sup-
pose it is the object of every party in the house to see faci-
litated. One would have supposed, from the observations
of the right hon. gentleman, that my hon. friend the
member for Hertfordshire had impeded that progress
which we all desire. lam grateful for the circumstances
that gave an opportunity to my hon. friend of making
one of the most masterly speeches which I have ever
heard. (Cheers.) And certainly no gentleman could
have risen more legitimately than my lion. friend. MY
hon. friend the Secretary to the treasury having moved
that you should leave the chair, that we should go into
committee and proceed with the business before us, one
of the most distinguished members of the Opposition,
representing, I suppose, the united opinion of a some-
what discordant agglomeration of sects—(laughter)—
with that vivacious tone which distinguishes him,
and that energetic command of language which is
always at his disposal, seemed to me to open the cam-
paig,n, indicating the line which the opposing forces

were going to attack—(hear) ; and I certainly did ima
gine that, when a person of such influence, and the
organ of his party rose, a trial would have been taken upon
the issue, which I certainly, representing the Govern-
ment, should extremely deprecate. One hon. gentleman,
although he sits on the opposite benches, made an ex-
cellent speech in favour of the policy of the Government ;
and we certainly manifested no desire to throw any ob-
stacle to the due progress of public business. Some
other hon. gentlemen expressed their opinions upon this
subject, and then the right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Oxford rose and entered into argu-
ments which, if I answered in detail, would lead me to a
complete vindication of the policy of the Government,
and certainly entirely prevent you, sir, from leaving the
chair with the view of the house resolving itself into
committee. I must refrain from any replies in detail to
the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentleman has made one charge against me.
He said that my estimated surplus was a fictitious
surplus. He said that it is entirely the produce of
borrowed money. I do not think that this is exactly the
time when I ought to go into a minute detail upon that
subject. I can only say that it appears to me that the
right hon. gentleman has addressed the house in com-
plete ignorance of the facts bearing upon this question
—(loud cheers)—and that, instead of its being borrowed
money, it is money that has been paid out of the revenue
of the country.
Mr. GLADSTONE—Hear, hear.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No
other course could have been taken. I think I shall
show to the satisfaction of the country that not one
shilling of that money is borrowed money. (Hear,
hear.) I think I shall.show that I have good reasons
for the course which I recommend. I hope that I shall
be able to obtain a sanction of the estimate that I have
offered to the house ; and I also hope to be able to lay
before the house certain facts which will lead to a great
improvement in the mode in which we keep the public
accounts of this country. I am persuaded when my
statement comes to be laid fairly before the house, I shall
establish, to the satisfaction 04 I believe, the majority
of this house, that the course I am recommending is a salu-
tary course. (Ministerial cheers.) Well, then, sir, the
right hon. gentleman appears to be offended that I did
not adopt the advice which he offered to me the other
night on this subject. No man had a greater respect
than I have for the right hon. gentleman. There is no
man probably in this house who is more ready than my-
self to admit his abilities, but I do not think that I am
treating him disrespectively when I say that in conduct-
ing the business of the Government I shall follow that
course which I myself think is right. (Cheers.) Sir,
the right hon. gentleman has alluded to the course which
I took with reference to the income and property tax
when that tax was only voted for a year. Sir, I think
the cases are perfectly dissimilar. When I brought for-
ward that motion, the income and property tax was re-
ferred to a committee. (Hear, hear.) It was then under
the investigation of a committee. It was extremely doubt-
ful what would be the result of the inquiries of that com-
mittee, or rather, I should say, the impression was that
the report of that committee would probably be fatal to the
continuance of the income and property tax. There is not a
single person in this house, wherever he may sit, or what-
ever may be his opinions, who has the slightest doubt that
a sum of money equalto that produced by the income and
property tax will be produced this year by a law of the same
kind. (Hear, hear.) Whether the principles which I
laid down, or those laid down by the resolution submitted
by the my hon. friend the member for Montrose, will be
adopted, may be a question, but that a sum of 5,000,0001.
or more will be raised this year by the income and property
tax no man has the slightest doubt. (Hear.) Well then,
the right hon. gentleman says I ought to take the
course which is usually taken by Chancellors of the Ex-
chequer on bringing forward financial statements. Now,
I want to know whether there is any similarity between
the circumstances under which the present Government is
placed, and the ordinary position of a Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who has to bring forward the ordinary finan-
cial statement of the year ? Why, have we not been
taunted from the very beginning by complaints that we were
evading the bringing forward of our measures. (Ministerial
cheers) And the most vulgar insinuations not heard, of
course, in this house, were made, that we were clinging to
office, and evading its responsibility. But we came forward
and indicated the policy that we recommended. The policy
that we recommended was, at least, at distinct policy. We
said we wished to assimilate the financial system of this
country to the new commercial system which is now
universally acknowledged and established. I had, on
the part of the Government, to bring forward the mea-
sures wh;ch they thought necessary for that purpose;
and I am taunted and told that I ought to have followed
the miserable routine of commonplace circumstances.
(Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.) I run per-
suaded that the course I have taken is the right course.
I feel persuaded that we ought not to avoid a fair and
frank encounter on the policy that we recommend. We
have endeavoured to place that policy without reserve
before the house. There is nothing that we less shrink
from than the decision ; and I hope, sir, now that you
are about to leave the chair, a decision will soon be
arrived at. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE wished to ask the Chancellor
of the Exchequer one question. He understood on a
former occasion that the right honourable gentleman
stated that her Majesty's Ministers intended to stand or
fall by the financial scheme which he then proposed
—that the house was to accept or reject the budget,
the whole budget, and nothing but the budget ?
He (Mr. Duncombe) therefore inferred that they
were not now about to resolve themselves into com-
mittee for the purpose of amending the budget, but that
it must either be swallowed or rejected as a whole.
(Laughter.) Was he right in putting that construction
upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement ?
(Divide.) Did the right hon. gentleman intend to treat
that house as a deliberative assembly, and permit them
to amend his budget ? If he did, then., he (Mr. Dun-
combe would not persist in dividing the house. (Divide.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise to say that, as my hon.
friend has stated a doubt whether he shall divide the
house, if he thinks proper to divide the house, I cannot
take that course with him ; but I shall be ready to go
into a committee of the whole house upon the proposition
of the right hon. gentleman. I will only say, therefore,
that I suppose he will expect that when we go into com-
mittee we shall not merely discuss the single proposition
which may be before the house, but that, having un-
folded a plan on Friday last, and having for fully five
hours explained the policy of the Government, lie must
expect that the whole of the plan shall be discussed when
we go into committee. I certainly do not find fault
with the right hon. gentleman for having brought
forward a plan which he thinks for the benefit of
the country. He has certainly redeemed his pledge
that no time should be lost in bringing it forward, and I
must say, that with portions of it I agree, however much
I object to the greater part of it.
Mr. B. OSBORNE hoped the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer would give an answer to the question of his
honourable friend the member for Finsbury—(divide)- -
as on the answer to that question might depend a con-
siderable number of votes on that (the Opposition) side
of the house. He had no wish to vote with his honour-
able friend the member for Finsbury if he was mistaken
in the construction which he had put upon the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer's statement upon former occasions;
but it was an insult to that house, and to the country
[the honourable and gallant gentleman being here in-
terrupted by loud cries for a division, exclaimed, amid
repeated bursts of laughter—" I observe that the lion.
member for Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) is interrupting
me at an hour of the evening (half-past six o'clock) when
lie has no excuse for such conduct," and resumedj—but
it was an insult to that house, and to the country, to be
told that the budget must be accepted as proposed by
the Government. He called upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to give a distinct answer to the question of
his honourable Friend the member for Finsbury, and in
the event of his refusal, he advised Mr. Duncombe to
divide the house. He hoped that if the house went to
to a division, honourable members would testify by their
votes their opinion of the conduct of the Government on
this important occasion. (Hear, and much confusion.)
Mr. HUDSON rose, amidst a scene of considerable
disorder, and said—Having been personally alluded to
by the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne), I
get up to answer his imputation. Ido not understand
his imputation, nor do I understand what he means
when he chooses to make use of such language. The
imputations which he throws upon me it is his custom
to throw upon others as well ; but. I tell him there is no-
body who more defies his imputations than I do—
(laughter)—and there is no man who is more ready
to meet him here or elsewhere than I am. (Confusion,
and cries of " Order." I am sure I do not intend to
be out of order ; but I cannot understand what the
ion. member means. I have now done with the hon.

member.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Oh ! I accept your apology
(Laughter.)
Mr. HUDSON—I am not unwilling to return any
friendship the hon. member may think fit to express,
but I trust the hon. member will not again indulge
.1
any such remarks as he has made to-night. I now .wish
to address myself to the main question—(a laugh);
namely, whether this motion should be withdrawn
is
not. I think that the hon. member, having made ,
bound to divide upon it, and, for my part, I am quite
ready to go to a division on the question.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that the question to which
the hon. members for Finsbury and Middlesex were so
answered already.
He to obtain a reply had
He apprehended that it was been
perfectly on.
upon3cl eacchYand every one' of
both sides of the house, that
the votes proposed by the Go_ renment whether
duties
respect to the house tax, the malvtetax, or,the tea duties
hon. members were to have an opportunity in committee
of submitting any amendments they pleased. (Hear,
hear.) He trusted that, under these circumstances, his
hon. friends would perceive that the very best course
that the house could pursue was to go, with as little de-
lay as possible, into a committee of ways and means.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I beg
the house to believe that I have no desire to answer,
otherwise than in the most satisfactory manner in my
power, any questions that any hon. member may think
fit to put to me. (Cheers.) I thought there v
most distinct understanding on all sides o
as to the course to be pursued on this subject ; an
if I had had any doubt as to the existence of such
an understanding, it would have been dispelled by the
remarks which have fallen this evening from the noble
lord the member for London, who appeared to be quite
as well aware of the true state of the case as any one
could be at this side of the house. With respect to the
statement I had the honour to make this day week, I
am sensible that it may have been too long, but it was
not longer that I felt it consistent with my duty to-
wards the house and the country to make it ; but, when

Le house

r A a
Z4'. -'
\CIII
1 „rill:
per
it was concluded, I had thought that it was pe ectl ,ii, k e,
well understood on all sides of the house that we we ••• - , , ''''n,,,.
losto go into committee this evening, and that an op 1_ . •4'
nity was then to be afforded to all members, who mV 'l.-ce-. 0144,-4
choose to accept it, of stating in what respects the ...-....,
own views might differ from those which I propounded
on the part of the Government. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord the member for London has expressed so well the
feelings of the Government—and, indeed, I think I may
add of the house—upon this subject, that I do not think
it necessary to dwell upon it at any length. (Hear,
hear, hear.) It did not occur to me that there was any
necessity to answer the questions of the hon. members
for Finsbury and Middlesex—questions which seemed
to me of a loose and inconclusive character, and having
no especial reference to the rather vague and desultory
statements with which they were prefaced. I certainly
did not say that the Government were resolved to
stand or fall by every vote in committee of ways
and means, for I should have considered such a de-
claration most arrogant and presumptuous—(hear)---
but what I did mean to convey was this, that the whole
scheme of the budget being founded upon certain prin-
ciples, we should consider as fatal to the whole any vote
that was actually subversive of those principles. I said
that the whole project being based upon certain great
principles, we must, as a matter of course, fall by any
vote the effect of which would be to cause a departure
from those principles. In the case, for instance, of the
income and d property taxes, the whole policy recom-
mended by the Government being founded upon the
principle that a distinction should be recognised between
precarious and realised incomes, any renunciation on the
part of the house of that principle would, no doubt, be
fatal to the whole. scheme. But if this principle be pre-
served inviolate, other regulations respecting the income
tax will be simply regarded as matters of detail, and as
such will not involve the fate of the Government.
(Hear.) So, again, with regard to the first vote—the
extension'of the house tax—is a principle of such im-
portance that the Government are of opinion that it
ought to be insisted upon. The details of the tax
doubtlessly are also matters of importance, but it would
be arrogant and presumptuous in me to declare that the
Government are prepared to stand or fall by them.
(Hear, hear.) I trust that this explanation will be re-
garded as satisfactory. (Cheers.)
Mr. DUNCOISIBB said that after the explanation o
the right hon. gentleman he did not think it necessary
'A) press the motion to a division.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
WAYS AND MEANS.

il4r,
•
ofj

The house then wont into Committee of Ways and Means
—MraW. PATTEN in the chair.
The inhalaited house duty was the first question taken.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
following resolutions :
" That, from and after the sth day of April, 1853, the
duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 and 15 Vic.,
cap. 36, upon inhabited dwelling-houses in Great Britain,
according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and de-
termine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and
made payable upon all such dwelling-houses the following
duties, that is to say :
" For every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the
household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith
occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of ten
pounds or upwards by the year ;
• Where any such dwelling-house shall be occupied by any
person in trade who shall expose to sale and sell any goods,
wares, or merchandise in any shop or warehouse, being part
of the same dwelling-house, and in the front and on the
ground or basement story thereof ;
" And also where any such dwelling-house shall be occu-
pied by any person who shall be duly licensed by the laws
in force to sell therein by retail beer, ale, wine, or other
liquors, although the room or rooms thereof in which any
such liquors shall be exposed to sale, sold, drunk, or con-
sinned, shall not be such shop or warehouse as aforesaid ;
" And also where any such dwelling-house shall be a farm
house occupied by a tenant or farm servant, bond fide used
for the purposes of husbandry only ;
" There shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such
annual value of any such dwelling-house the sum of one
shilling.
" And where any such dwelling-house shall not be occu-
pied and used for any such purpose and in manner aforesaid,
there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such
annual value thereof the sum of one shilling and sixpence."
The CHAIRMAN having read the resolutions as far as
the words " following duties,"
Mr. W. WILLIAMS moved as an amendment, "That
in lieu of the increase of the tax on houses, proposed in the
said resolution, real property shall be made to pay the
same probate and legacy duties as are now payable on per-
sonal property." He confessed he viewed with great alarm
and disfavour this proposition on the part of the Govern-
ment to extend the house tax, for he believed that it in-
volved a breach of faith with the public, who had been
given to understand last year that the house tax was im-
posed simply for the purpose of supplying the deficiency
created by the abolition of the window tax, and that it
would not be extended beyond the amount of that defi-
ciency. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was an indirect violation of that understanding, in consi-
deration of which alone, the house had been induced to
acquiesce in the tax. Under the now system, three
or four times as many persons as were now liable
to the tax would have to pay it for the future.
Almost every labouring man who occupied one room
in a house would, directly or indirectly, come within its
grasp. It would press most grievously on the industrial
classes in the metropolis and great towns, while the same
classes in the country would be comparatively, if not alto-
gether exempt. 20,000 of his (Mr. Williams) consti-
tuency, who were now free from it, would henceforward
be liable, while not one labouring man on the estate of
the hon. baronet (the member for Hertfordshire) would
have to pay the tax. Farm-house valuations differed very
widely, as everybody knew, from the valuations of city
houses, and country gentlemen were known to exercise an
irresistible influence on the county assessors. The tax
would disfranchise 2,000 electors in the parish of Lambeth
alone' and it was his conviction that its main object was
to effect that and similar disfrauchisements. • He did not
object to the reductions which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposed to make, though he was not sure that
the consumer would be greatly benefited by the reduction
of the duties on tea or malt ; but he was decidedly hostile
to the house tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would
act wisely by abandoning the tax, and extending to real
property the probate and legacy duties, now payable on
personal property only. The probate and legacy duty wa s
a tax which affected one class most oppressively, while
another class, composed of opulent persons, escaped it en-
tirely. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would perceive the propriety of acceding to this sugges-
tion, and if he did so, he (Mr. Williams) would find no
great difficulty in saying " aye" to the rest of his budget.
He could have wished, however, that the right hon. gentle-
man had also acknowledged the necessity of abolishing the
most objectionable of all taxes—that on soap.
Mr. HUME did not see what practical good would re-
sult from the amendment, and advised his hon. friend to
withdraw it for the present. It had no legitimate relation
to the house tax, and was, therefore, for the present, in-
opportune. The real question for the committee just now
to consider was, whether the project of the Government
was to be accepted as a whole, or whether it was to be de-
feated in /intim, and the Government told to go about
their business. (A. laugh.) If the Government were suf-
fered to retain office, they would have to bring in a bill on
the subject of the inhabited house duties, and that bill
would have to pass through all the customary stages, and
then the hon. member would have abundant opportunity
to state objections and suggest expedients.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said it was his opinion that the
proposition which he had moved could only be made in a
committee of ways and means ; it could not be brought for-
ward as an amendment on any bill of the Government. Ho
did not object to the remissions proposed by the Govern-
ment, but to the means by which they meant to provide
for the supplies of the year ; and he pointed to the means
which he would prefer to substitute. On the whole, he
thought ho was right in the course he had taken.
Sir R. H. INGLIS agreed with the hon. member for
Montrose as to the propriety of discussing the proposed
amendment on that occasion. But he took occasion, at the
same time, to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
reconsider the exemptions which the income and property
tax, as well as the house tax involved. He could very well
understand a system of taxation which excluded all exemp-
tions whatever, and touched the labourer at twelve shillings
a week equally as the man of an independent income. That
was intelligible. But, if exemptions were introduced at all,
he contended—whatever might be the point at which they
fixed the limit, whether it were 1001. or 150/.—that limit
ought to be observed in all incomes, whether in the case of
the income below the limit, which was therefore exempted
altogether, or in the case of an income above the limit, which
ought to be taxed only on the amount of the excess. It
was not inconsistent to exempt the man with 1501 uroPil9,
but it was cruelty to tax a man with an income oft 1511.
upon the whole amount. There was another subject upon
which he approved what had fallen from thewhrienteh°9ci
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exehequer,
with incomessai
he meant to consider the casevioofw clergymenotleir relief, on the
not exceeding 1001.
with appliedn to Dissenting ministers.
same principle as was he hoped no ono would re-
That was a poposition
housewi
and the Government to consi-
gret. He begged the .
consi-
der the difficulty which these gentlemen
aecohraddint,? contend
with in maintaining their appearance
ed se to their
y Power of letting
rank, and also that houses were provid for them, which
they were obliged to occupy without an
them to others. He submitted these two propositions
in to
ifnurthhie considerationincome tax, ho
the Chancellor of the
a lima ?cheliquier
first, whether, striking
would not observe it in all cases, and tax only the excess ;
and, secondly, whether he ought to levy a house tax on
those who wore compelled to occupy certain houses which
they had no power to sub-let.
Mr. BRIGHT thought the hon. gentleman would see it
was not advisable to risk the rejection of his proposition
in the existing state of the house, especially
a distinct proposition on the part theofas there was
Government be-
fore them. It were better the committee should be allowed
to vote aye or no upon the main proposition. For himself,
he did not see the necessity for any new tax being imposed,
but when that necessity should arise, then a tax upon pro-
perty by succession generally was the one to which the
house ought to agree, and until that tax, when required,
was agreed to, he should not give his vote for any new tax
whatever. He hoped the hon. gentleman would give way.
Mr. HUDSON by no means agreed with the advice of
the hon. member for Manchester, that the amendment
should be withdrawn, since the hon. member for Lambeth
signified his approval of the Budget in all except this par-
ticular item. Ho said his constituents, in so far as they
were connected with the shipping interest, found that the
Government in removing all their grievances had given
them reasons to be thankful. He admitted, although a
petition from his constituents against the house tax had
been presented by him, that if they were to have cheap
tea and cheap beer, the loss occasioned thereby must be
borne in some other way, but then he perceived that, while
the taxes remitted amounted to 3,000,0001., the new im-
post proposed was only to the extent of 100,0001. The re-
mission • of the tea duty would be a direct benefit to the
consumer, and an indirect advantage, by its influence on
commerce, and our trade with China and our relations with
that country. Tho reduction of the malt tax would have
upon the agricultural interest
the most beneficial effect
and the enjoyment of the poor. From his own exten-
sive acquaintance, he might say that the country gene-
rally, were perfectly satisfied with the Budget. He
certainly. knew it had produced no alarm among the
commercial classes, and he believed that, if adopted,
it would promote the development of commerce, at
the same time it increased the returns to revenue. He
(Mr. Hudson) was glad the hon. baronet the member for
Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had withdrawn his proposi-
tions. What the country wanted was this—now that the
struggle of free trade was over, that there should be a final