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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 11,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
(Continued from our Third Edition of last evening.)

Mr. MACGREGOR moved for returns of the num-
ber of Post-office receiving-houses in London, Dublin,
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Manchester, re-
spectively ; the number of collections daily from each
receiving-house, and the proportion of the population of
each of these places, as per last census, bears to each
receiving-house ; whether general Post-office business
can be transacted at all these receiving-houses, and, if
not, 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 yeah; 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.

THE BUDGET.
Qn 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 oppdse 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 discusss 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-

went, 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.)
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 to take
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 remembered 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 thin 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 mtm
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 ho
member for the University of Oxford, in which he (to
dared 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 mine
of the great danger that would arise if theydeparted 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 speoial 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 beeif-better to have preferrenhe reductiom
of some other yet duty than that of malt, such as
paper, or soap--Wher,. 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 nevor induced the people to
eat paper or drink soap. (A laugh.) His lion. friend the
member for M ontrose had said most 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. He 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 to Liverpool,
and to our merchants and manufacturers ; and 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, and to 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 precisely upon the same principle as the reduc-
tion of the tea, duties? (Hear, hear.) He must grant
that we did net
_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 lie 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 speakinc, 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—

"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
31d. 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 600,0001. 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-

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 theni 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 ail agricultural distress was unreal and
exaggerated—supposing that the fanners were the bnly
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 dancer, 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 ! (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 ease 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 by the leaders of a party
who had threatened to change the constitution itself in 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 theni, 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 be-
lieved that the great body of the intelligent public were
disposed to favour a policy which, while it would be
conservative of the great principles of the constitution,
would still effect valuable and practical reforms. (Hear,
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 and ineffective, in spite of the honesty, virtue, and
genius of the men who composed, and of the premier who
presided over it, still continued to exist, and in his mind
would still prevent that unity and firmness of purpose
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, he
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-lhad 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 could 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 orato-
rical prepossessions— (a laugh)—to approach the con-
sideration of those measures in their natural order.
On that ground, he entirely declined with his hon. friend
the member for Nottingham, to accede to the doctrine
that the vote now before 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. Ile 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, bad purported to
show, in the figures he submitted to the house, a surplus
of 400,0001. ; but that 400,0001., which he applied to the
services of the year, was !not money raised for the ser-
vice of the year. It was simply so much debt. In former
years, money had been borrowed for the purpose of lend-
ing it for public works, and when that money came in
again, what ought to be done with it ? It was a ques-
tion he was ashamed to ask. (Cheers.) The money
borrowed for public works ought, when returned, to be
applied to the extinction of the debt incurred for those
public 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 400,000/. 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 uppn 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 hon. 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 pf 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 lie 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. Gladsto) 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
2,000,000/. 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 950,0001., and the then Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer proposed to substitute it for a house tax which
would yield only 350,000/. He therefore proposed to
sacrifice a sum of 600,000/., and to retain a surplus of
1,400,000/. 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
the 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, lie believed, was
moved as an 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 600,000/.
oftaxation, 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. llte 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 1,200,0001., if
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 elevatednotions 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 sonic
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 900,000/., and would
the house, which protested against the remission of
taxes when there was a surplus of 1,200,0001. or
1,400,0001., but ;when the question of the income tax
was unsettled, permit the right hon. 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 lie 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 lie
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, he was going to impose a new house tax,
the amount of which would be 1,000,0001. annually ;
but, as this year would only yield half that sum,
viz., 500,000/. 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 lie (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 1,200,000/. 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 niany taunts and jeers
had been thrown out against gentlemen who Thad 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 lie could say was that, for himself, whether success-
ful or not, he was not the judge, he had striven to avoid
the use of them. (General applause.) Ho 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-
vernment 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 he had resorted to an unworthy
artifice, that of referring to his antecedents. (Laugh-
ter.) Now lie (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
lie 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 he 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 me, sir, that the address of the right hon. gentlemar
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 hon. friend. MY
lion, 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 if.
always at his disposal, seemed to me to open the cam.
pale, indicating the line which the opposing forces