The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-08 00:00:00

BILL.

This bill was read a second time on the motion of Lord
STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion for going into committee •f ways and
means,

Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to make a few observa-
tions before the house went into committee on the financial
position of the country, which he considered was one that
was calculated to excite anxiety in the public mind. They
had heard from the Chancellor of the ExcL'e-
quer the startling statement that they commenced
the financial year without any surplus whatever.
There might be circumstances when such a state of things
might be a source of gratification, as for instance when
there was a remission of taxation, or when that e was great
prosperity at home and great tranquillity abroad. But such
was not the case at present, for they had distress in the
manufacturing districts, and they had disturbances in
America, and they had to look forward to an additional
increase of distress in the manufacturing districts. He
contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been
entirely deceived in the estimate he had formed of the result
of the abolition of the duty on paper, and facts proved that
he had entirely failed in his calculation. He denied that
there was any real reduction in the national debt, as
stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but
there was a real deficiency, and he entered into
statistics to prove his position. He alluded next to the in-
demnity fund received from China, and said that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had been deceived in this respect
also, and instead of receiving £700,000 from that
source the Government had not re.: ?dyed £400,000. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial
instate-
tuent,lasttw
order
yeadertros
as
make out
years, in oo
exceptianalhis case, described
the
li)
hs eaqdu etnhcee
hof o
ntohuer Cohf i naa wscaart ;
nb utth
as
ti nhc eo
uhs
ee, (Mr.
they
. Dwiesrrea e
al-
ways engaged in hostilities of one description or the
other, and he contended that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer should, from the experience of the past, have included
the contingency of the same in his calculations. The
right honourable gentleman went in detail through.
the different items of the Budget, and argued that these did
not justify the glowing colours of the favourable financial
position of the country drawn by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. He denounced in strong terms the remarks of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the income tax, and
contended that that•tax should not be considered as a per-
manent tax in a time of peace. He denied that the Chan-.
calor of the Exchequer was entitled to be called an economist.
The income tax had been treated as a permanent impost
which in itspresent form it could not remain. The minister
had no right to fritter away the revenue of the country and
leave that tax untouched. One of the most profuse finance
ministers was constantly insinuating that he objected to the
expenditure for which he was providing, and was burning
to denounce it—a position at least not consistent with that
political morality of which he was once the foremost ad-
vocate.

Mr. BASS then rose to object to the proposal for the
c'ntmutation of the hop duty, and the imposition of brewers'
licenses.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, referring
to the latter topic fir,t. said that a modification of the plan
as to the license would be necessary. The minimum rate
payable by private brewers would be 55., and the charge
would rise to 405., according to rent of houses, and in the
case of farms to 235. Turning to what he termed the finan-
cial history, delivered with.the judicial impartiality of the
historian by Mr. Disraeli, he said that the fallacy of his
speech was that which ran through his policy and that of
his party, a want of dependence on the principles of free-
trade, which had given such elasticity to the resources of
the country,. With considerable minuteness the right hon.
gentleman proceeded to dissect and answer the arguments
and criticisms of Mr. Disraeli, denying his premises ant..
showing that his inferences were incorrect, especially as -ca.
garded the assertion that the last two years were not,
hsex-
ceptional years; and there was not a topic on wb',ch
critic had dwelt, in order to prove the financial gravity
of the situation, that he himself had not, to the best of
his ability, laid before the house on Thursday last. He
had never changed his language as to the ;income tax, or
treated it as one which ought to be a permanent tax.
Touching onMr. Disraeli's financial calculations, he showed
that estimates of his had failed largely in the result—his
two sole attempts at clever imposition of taxes, in the case
of stamps en cheques and a tax on Irish spirits, producing
only a third of the calculated yield in each case. As, to the
repeal of the paper duty, which caused a loss of £600,000,
now complained of, the opponents of that measure pro..
posed to part with £950,000 of tea duty, which would have
been so much addition to the alleged deficiency. As to the
vituperation and censure of Mr. Disraeli it was not difficult
for him to bear them, for he was susta.ined by the recollec-
tion that far better men than he had been visited with the
like. But he should be still more content if the effect of
the right hon. gentlemen's speech was to bring the house
and the country to a due sense of the gravity of the finan-
cial situation and the necessity for reduction of expenditure.
As to the income tax, he was still of opinion that an in-
crease of the rate of that tax was a financial danger, and tb 0
rate at which it lately stood was caused by the necessitvi of
meeting large military expenditure in 1859. He di'j not
desire that that tax should be permanent, and if the coun-
try could be governed for something about £60,000,000 it
could be done without ; but it could not be done with an
expenditure of £70,000,000. Looking to the re-construc-
tion of the navy, and other exceptional causes, he did nit
yet despair of reduction and retrenchment in the expendi-
ture of the country, although he did not speak of large and
sudden reductions.
A discussion of much length ensued, in which the Bud-
get and the whole of our revenue policy were reviewed, Mr..
Bentinck, Sir 11. Willoughby, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Vance„
Mr. Lindsay, Lord R. Cecil, and Mr. Ball taking part in
the discussion.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE, in the course of an elaborate criti-
cismlast
iogfhtth
ye
eßa
rued, getsin ,eue rlgBesd4,u
tphoenr
et hheand obueseent hlaa tr g
eduringe the
last eight years, since 1854, there had been, large deficien..
cies of revenue; in six of these years the deficiency had
been L 6,144,000, and in two years there was a surplus of
£2,400,000, leaving a net deficiency of £3,744,000. The
questicn was, he observed, whether this exceptional state of
things was going to end, and whether we should not retain
any resources we had in hand. Unless the house made
prudent provision for the year, either by an increase of the
revenue or a reduction of the expenditure, it would not,
he thought, do its duty to the country.
The house then went into a committee of ways and
means, when certain resolutions were agreed to, authoriz-
ing the issue of £1,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds, tb.e con-
tinuance of the income-tax and of the tea and sup) r duties,
the charging of an excise duty upon occasional ::tenses to
sell beer, &c,, a stamp duty and a customs' duty upon
playing cards, and a stamp duty upon foreign loan bonds.
THAMES EMBANKMENT,
On the order for the second reading of the Thames Em-
bankment Bill,
Sir J. SHELLEY said, as this embankment was to cost
£1,500,000, to be paid out of the coal-tax, he asked the
house to look a little into th© matter. He approved the
project of an embankment, but he objected, for various rea-
sons, to the plan adopted, and he called for explanations
and a detailed statement, that it might be seen whether the
scheme was founded in justice towards those who were to
pay for it. He moved to defer the second reading till the
estimate of the cost of the work was laid on the table.
The amendment was seconded by Mr. W. WILLIAMS.
eccreoray
Mr. COWPER stated the details of the esentimdateo,ctiihee
length of the streets and of the embankment, r
been before a se-
particulars, which,. he observed,
lect committee. The object had be
to the cost
en to
secure that object. The ho use, in
obtain a plan that would
the coal duties
bill, would
reading of the net commit
affirming the second been
nhadto
combine
but would
with efficiency, and he described the steps he had telt
itself to the details of the plan, merely assent to
of the embankment.
Mr. AYRTON said, be
fore this bill was Liroceeded with,
the general principle of rapplYwg
of the metropolis to
the inhabitants ought
....tow what the
scheme was,
and to have an authentic statement of the ex-
pense, and he challenged Mr. Cowper to say that he had
such authentic statement.
Remarks upon the plan and the riled
Rema e of carrying it out
wore made by Mr. LOCKE and Mr, Cox ; and, upon a divi-
sion, the amendment was negatived by 116 to 9.
The bill was then read a aecond time, and, it being a
hybrid bill, it was ordered to be referred to a select com-
mittee.
The house %en went into committee upon the Hull
South Bridge (Advance), after objections
ance), some by Mr.
A. SMITH 1
, 'wen a resolution moved by Mr. PEEL was
agreed to.
Certain bills were forwarded a stage, and leave wa
given, to introduce bills, and the house adjourned at twenty
minutes to one o'clock.