The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

EVENING, APRIL 5, 1851.

—(Laughter and cheers.) The country was, therefore,
at this moment governed by a Ministry who depended
on th,ir speeches and not en their measures.—(Hear,
and laughter.) He (Mr. Disraeli) thought the speech of
the Hon. Member for Huntingdon a very good speoe's.
The Noble Lord, however, thought differently, for what
cause he (Mr. Disraeli) could not say. But he could not
agree that there was any analogy, as drawn by the Noble
Lord between the present case and the surplus left by the
late Sir R. Peel. Tho Government of Sir R. Peel was a
strong Government, for inAtence, atthat period.—(Hear.)
It was therefore a very different Government from that
of the Noble Lord, who had so often to come to the table
of that House and announce a change in his measures
with the utmost humility.—(Hear.) Sir R Peel had
confidence in himself; the Noble Lord could not say that
for his Government.—(Hear.) The Government of Sir
a Peel was supported on that occasion by a strong
party, and therefore :the Minister might make any ar-
rangements he saw fit to make; but the Noble Lord was
not in the rune position, for he had only a large surplus,
with a small party.—(Year, and a laugh.) But there
were other circumstances which made the two cases still
less analagous. The speech of Sir R. Peel, when he
had that surplus of 90,000,0001.—(Loud laughter)-
90,0001. rather; Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but they
never would get that surplus. The speech of Sir R. Peel
on that occasion was not stuffed full of boastful anticipa-
tions of a surplus, nor with explanations of hie improved
mode of administering the finances of the country.--
(Hear,Thear.) Any one who had heard the Right Hon.
Gentleman, however, would suppose he was about to
pay off the national debt, the basis of all his statements
being to maintain the public credit by means of his
surplus. But what was that surplus ? It was a false
surplus, as had been shown by the First Lord of the
Treasury himself, who had reduced it from 900,000/. to
350,0001. He (Mr. Disraeli) denied the correctness of
the statement. When that mysterious sum claimed by
the East India Company was paid, where would be the
surplus then ? What was that claim ? When was it
made ?
Tho CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER —Yes-
terday.— ( Leugh ter.)
Mr. DISRAELI—It was a fortunate circumstance

then that the present Administration returned to power,
that they might pay this claim which would be other-
wise left to their successors. As he was on his legs, he,
too, would make a friendly observation on the speech of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. When the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman introduced his Budget he took credit to himself
for the sympathy he felt with the sufferings of the owners
and occupiers of land, when he proposed a reduction in
the duty on certain seeds. That proposition excited the
risibility of some Members on his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of
the House—it did not excite his risibility. The Right
Hon. Gentlemman also proposed to bear the burden of
pauper lunatics, which appeared to him (Mr. Disraeli)
to be the admission of a most important principle as re-
garded local taxation; for he could not for the life of him
perceive the difference in that respect between a common
pauper and a lunatic pauper, nor understand how, if the
Consolidated Fund was to support the one, it should not
suport the other. The Right Honourable Gentleman,
however, now withdrew both propositions, because,
as he said, his nervous susceptibility had been
offended at the manner in which they were received
by the opposite side of the House. He (Mr. Disraeli)
could not recollect a *le speech against them; and
certainly no lengthened discussion had taken place on
the subject of the Budget. But, even supposing some
Hon. Gentlemen had, by a sneer or a smile, expressed
their sense that that amount of relief was by no means
commensurate with the admission of agricultural distress
in the Speech from the Throne, and of the sufferings of
the owners and occupiers of the land, it did not by any
means follow that it afforded a sufficient reason for the
withdrawal of the Right Hon. Gentleman's proposition.
—(Hear, hear.) If, however, the Right Hon. Gentle-
man considered this a sufficient ground for such with-
drawal, with what degree of consistency of conduct could
he vindicate the course he had pursued with respect to
his proposition on the window duties, which had been
not alone not received with cordial approbation by Hon.
Members opposite, but which had, at public meet-
ings called to denounce the Government, been held
up to public execration. Yet the gratitude of the
Government to their indignant supporters was to in-
crease the scheme of relief from taxation, which they had
gratefully accepted, while they, on this side of the
House, who had scarcely urged a word of moment against
the proposition for the relief of land, found the pro-
position withdrawn off hand without notice, and Go-
vernment now stood in this position—they commenced
the session with assuring their Sovereign that the only
class which was suffering was the agricultural class, and
when they brought forward their financial scheme not a
single proposal for relief was offered, or a single word of
sympathy expressed for the condition of the owners and
occupiers of land.—(Hear.) He did not know what the
feelings of the House were, but he knew what were his
feelings, and he considered the course taken by the Hon.
Member for Stamford with relation to the financial
scheme, on Monday, was temperate and wise. It was
impossible to foresee what might occur. Members at the
gangway, who were now the enthusiastic supporters of
Government, could hardly have conceived that they
would be inspired so soon with motives of so exalted a
character—(Laughter)—but if his Right Hon. Friend
did not succeed in carrying his proposition, he (Mr.
Disraeli) would put fairly before the House and the
country the sufferings of the owners and occu-
piers of land—and taking the question of the
surplus which Government had dealt with in so
capricious a manner, and had yielded so large a
proportion to clamour so unauthorised—he would
ask the House and the country to come to a decision
as to what should be done with that surplus, and whe-
ther, as one class was in a state of suffering, that surplus
should not be dedicated to the mitigation of that suffer-
ing.—(Hear) He would put that question before the
House; he would show how the suffering could be fairly
mitigated, for he would not have the course of justice
disturbed by any suspicion that he had any wish or mo-
tive except to give relief to the suffering agricultural in-
terest. He would not permit the worn-out plan of al-
lowing the general policy of our commercial system to
be mixed up with the principle of justice to the owner
and occupier. He would simply ask the House to look
at the question by itself, and after all the mockery of
financial manceuvres—the mockery of financial expe-
dients and injustice—after all the attempts to revive an
exploded scheme of finance—he and they would invite
the House to make an effort to relieve one class—the only
class acknowledged to be in a state of suffering.
Viscount EBRINGTON would trouble the House
with a few words on the propositions submitted by the
Right Hon. Gentleman. It might be humiliating for a
Whig Government to be able only trimake good speeches
and propose bad measures, as the Hon. Gentleman op-
posite said; but it was more humiliating in his opinion
for a party to be able to make good speeches, and to be
incapable of proposing measures es had been admitted
by ha chief.—(oll.) The Noble Lord then pronounced
a eulogium on the proposition for reducing the duty on
coffee and timber, and especially for the proposal to sub-
stitute a moderate house tax for an objectionable win-
dow-tax. _ _

Mr. FREWEN said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
declared he did not wish to send down a regiment of tax-
gatherers to collect taxes; but t►ois was exactly what the
Right Hon. Gentleman had done with respect to the
county with which he was connected. A number of writs
had been served on the farmers in that district for taxes,
and it wa-, impossible to describe the amount of distress
and suffering which bad been occaeioned. He had re-
ceived upwards of sixty letters on the subject, and he
could assure the House if they were read they would
prove that the agricultural interest in that district was
nearly ruined. It was impossible this state of things
could go on without that part of the country being re-
duced to as bad or even a worse state than was Ireland.
Mr. WAWN argued that the changes in our naviga-
tion-laws bad damaged the shipping interest.
Mr. LABOUCHERE must repel the assertion that
the repeal of the navigation-laws had or was likely to
operate injuriously on British shipping or on the British
shipbuilder. He was satisfied, looking at the cost of iron
and shipbuilding materials, that with fair play we could
build ships so as to compete advantageously with any other
country in the world. Even before the reduction of duty
ou shipbuilding materials was made the British shipbuil-
der was able to build ships to compete with those of any
nation. He observed by the returns that only 10,000
tons of foreign shipping had been registered within a
given period. He could not say the number of ships
building in the various dockyards, but, taking the port
of London alone, it would be found that of iron steamers
more than 10,000 tons had been built on foreign ac-
count. In iron steam-ship building this country pos-
sessed immense advantages, and this enabled us not only
to supply our own wants, but thos," of foreign nations.
It was not the proper time for going into this aiscus-
sion, otherwise ho should have no difficulty in proving
his case.
Mr. WAWN said he had documents in his possession
to prove that the shipping interest had been in a dis-
tressed condition for many years.
Colonel SIBTHORP could not make head or tail of

the Budget. He believed, however, there was far more
tail than head in it. He gave notice that he intended to
take the sense of the House as to the effect of the income-
tax now levied on the farmers of England. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had made a miserable exhibi-
tion, and what he had now said he might have said six
weeks ago. The reason why the Right Hon. Genitlo -
man did not do so was because he wanted to smugg e a
few votes for the army and navy estimates, and for car-
rying on the credit of the country, about which so much
boast had been made.
Colonel THOMPSON trusted that the friends of the
manufacturing interest would sustain the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in any opposition that might be brought
against his financial scheme from the other side of the
House. The friends of the or and the worki classes
be paid by
were bound to support the Government on the present
ybrsehaodulodi tihnethpeoor main,aia the sources
occasion; for the real question at issue was whether the
ttaxationj oo
rf theoot country
thentr
of
Mthre.ir.employment.ALCOGK saw no great benefit to the
likelyagricultu-
wole to arise from the amended Budget,
it would be more satisfactory to the
public
interestloboe a
than his previous scheme. As retarded
though
tonlat
large
oegh
the income-tax he approved of the principle on which it
was based; though of its details he must say that, so far
as they affected the tenant farmers, they were most arbi-
trary and unfair. The abolition of the income-tax would
of necessity render perpetual the malt-tax, and ho trusted
therefore that the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
(Mr. Disraeli) would not lend himself to such a fallacy.
Mr. G. HUDSON, in reference to some observations
which had fallen from the President of the Board of
Trado, directed attention to a petition which he had
presented from the ship builders and owners of Sunder-
land, complaining of great distress in their trae.e, and
hihnes t Ge
aodv
oe rf npma
re ta
ltyo,
eabolish
st
ohde tiinm
thor
ohnert
due
tcya 121 el dt
get
Budget.
Mr. LABOUCEERE wished to atato one single
I fact in answer to the Hon. Molder and it was this, that

during the past year mo, e, and larger, and belle; ships
bad teten buih. at Sunerlaud than had ev,.r been built
since Sunderland was a shipping port.—(tdear.)
Mr. HUDSON admitted that, but said it oil not fol.
10,57 that the trade was therefore prosperous.—(on.) He
himself had boon lergely ergaged in trade, and hod gone
on for years making no profits at all. Establishments
could not be broken uo all at once.
Mr. HEYWORTII said that the true policy for the
landed interest to pursue, was to give every facility for
1 the extension of trade and commerce. Hon. Members
had talked of repudiating the national debt. If it ever
should he repudiated, it would be from the continuance
of a system of taxation which plundered the labouring
people of the country.
The resolution was then put from the chair and
agreed to.
On the motion of Mr, C. LEWIS, 17,556,000/. via;
voted to be raised by Exchequer-bills, for the service of
the year 1551.
Report to be received on Monday.
The House then resumed.
ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ACT (REPEAL) BILL
On the motion of Mr. J. STUART, the House went
into Committee on this Bill.
After a few words from Mr. STANFORD,
Sir J. ROMTLLY suggested that a clause should be
introduced to prevent the Bills and Acts which had been
drawn up this session being affected by tile present.
measure.
Mr. J. STUART had no objection to bring up such
a clause on the report.
Mr. F. MAULE said that that very day two important
Bills had been sent to the Lords drawn up in conform:Ty
with the Act, and come such clause as that proposed was
necessary to prevent then being aff..-!eted by this measure.
Tho Bill then went through the Committee. Report
on Monday.
Oa the motion of Mr. C. LEWIS, the following Com-
mittee on Expiring Laws was appointed:--Mr. C. Lewis,
Mr. Hayter, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bernal, Mr.
Rasher, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Hume, Mr. Aglionby,
Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Bellew, Mr. Greene, Mr. Rich, Sir
George Clerk, Sir John Young, and Mr. Stafford.
Mr. CHARTERIS moved for a Select Committee to
inquire into and report on the present state of the
ordnance survey of Scotland. and on the works which
will be required for its completion. Ho said the survey
for England, with the exception of the four northern
counties, had been completed, so also had the survey of
' Ireland, within the last 20 years. Though the survey of
Scotland had commenced in 1809, "ly a fourth part
had been surve.led. The sum expended for the survey
of England was 780,0001.; for Ireland, 820,000/.; and for
Scotland, only 66,000/. He trusted, therefore, the Go-
vernment would not oppose the Committee.
Mr. FOX MAULE thought the Hon. Gentleman was
Entitled to the thanks of the people of Scotland for tak-
ing up the question_ He gladly supported the motion
for a Committee, and should be ready to give any assist-
, ance he could.
After a few words from Sir W. JOLLIFFE,
The motion was agreed to.
Viscount JOCELYN moved
" That the Select Committee on steam communications
i with ladis, &e., do consist of 17 Members.
" That Mr. Bright be added to the Committee on steam
communications with India, &c. _ _

"'Tat Mr. Elliott be discharged from attenclance
on the Committee on steam communications with Indiq,
r,,nd that Mr. Wilson be added."—Agreed to.

The House then adjourned at r. Quarter gait Twelve
o'clock.

THE NEW BUDGET.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TPIES.—Sir Charles Wood cannot be L.Ned this
year with yielding too large a compliance to public im-
portunity. His new BuOget is substaritial:y tho same as
that which he hastened to give us in the third week of
the session. He has announced the renewal of the in-

come-tax, as yet without any modification, though, as he
refers rather darkly to some detalis to be published
neat Monday, it is possible we may find ourselves agree-
ably surprised on this point. The window-tax is once
more condemned, but the proposed substitute is a con-
siderable improvement on that which before gave such
general dissatisfaction. That was a complex scheme, the
chief features of which were a reduction of the window-
tax on existing houses to two-thirds of its present
amount, and five per cent. on the rental of new houses.
Sir Charles now proposes a uniform tax of in the
pound, or 31 per cent., on all dwelliag-houees, and Gd.
in the pound on houses with shops, inns, farm-houses,
and a.ll buildings of a semi-industrial, semi-residential
character; houses of a rental under 201. a-year being
exempted as before. As the agricultural interest does
not appreciate the boons offered to it in the trans-
fer of half the charge for lunatics from the
rates to the Consolidated 'C'unal, :sad in the reduction
tion of the duties on foreign seed, Sir Charles he taken
it at its word, and, contrary to his own estimate of these
boons will CO longer press them. The remission of half
the differential duty on foreign timber, and the reduc-
tion of the duties oa colonial and foreign coffee to a uni-
form rate of 3d. a pound, continuo parts of the Budget.
We certainly did not expect that Sir Charles would
dodge about looking for a Budget that would give uni•
versal content. Such al one there does not exist in the
world of possibilities; and a Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, like any other public man, is bound to stick to his
plans with some pertinacity. That the new Budget will
be popular we can hardly expect, for we cannot profess
unqualified satisfaction with it ourselves. As to the new
form of the house-tax, it certainly is much less objec-
tionable than the former. According to that plan, the
inequalities of the existing window-tax were perpetuated,
though the amount was somewhat reduced, and au old
house full of windows which paid 151. a year with some
hope of relief, was to bo saddled with a perpe-
tual burden of 10/. The commotion made by the
proposal is too fresh for it to be necessary to mention
mere objections. Sir Charles's new proposal will, we
should think, satisfy all who will consent to a house-tax
at all. In the cases of particular hardship, where the
present window-tax amounts to 15 or 20, or even 30 per
cent. on the rental, a tax of 34 per cent. will be felt as
a trifling affair. The late outcry against a house-tax
arose, as it seemed to us, ebiefly from a feeling of disap-
pointment that the window-tax was not to be repealed
without a substitute. Apart from the disappointed ex-
peotations of Marylebone and Bath, there can be no
valid objection alleged to a bouse-tax, for as a general
rule a house is a very good measure of expenditure.
We do not see why a man who occupies a house worth
1,0001. a year, perhaps several such houses, should not
be taxed for these luxuries as well as the tea-drinker,
the beer drinker, and the tobacco-smaher. The chief
objection to a house-tax is one that has been little
alluded to. It is that houses are heavily
tuaiNl already. The property tax of 7d. in the
pound on houses, the duty on fire assurance.
the poor-rates and county-rates for public
purposes, all mount up info a consiL:erable
sum, varying from 10 to 20 per cent. on the rental. As
the property-tax, however, will some day, we aro per-
suaded, be taken off our shoulders, and as the duty on
assurances is far too iniquitous and impolitic to be per-
petual, the question of tt a house-tax" may be consi-
dered independsnt of them. The new farm of the
house-tax will yield about 400,0001. less than that for-
merly propoeed, but the reluctance of the agriculturists
to eccept the two boons offered by Sir Charles will en-
able him to he more liberal to householders than he at
first intended to be. The income-tax will not be re-

impoFel without a serious discussion—first, on the
propriety of putting the notorious schedule D on a
more equitable footing ; and, secondly, on the sort
of nederstandine•° upon which the nation consents to
another lease for three years. Every year adds
to the sense of injustice that pervades the com-
mercial and profe:,sional classes on the subject of a tax
on purely industrial income, for every year multiplies
examples of income-tax paid in part out of capital.
We know of cases where nothing now remains out of
professional incomes that have paid income. tax every
year since 1842, and where the widows and orphans
would feel it a very serious relief to receive back the
income-tax paid in that period. We know camases
where life assurances for the sake of large faili
have reduced the net income so low that the income-tax
was, in fact, 4 or 5 per cent. on small and precarious
incomes. Still harder cases have coma to our know-
ledge where the income has been steadily declining
during the whole of the nine years, till, through ili-
health or other circumstances, it totally_ ceased, while the
tax upon it was kept up at nearly the loriginal amount,
and never ceased till the last payment kvas made by exe-
cutors out of a scanty fund. The gradual diminution
of total income assessed to the tax is itself a proof either
of growing dishonesty, which we cannot wholly believe,
or of the ?act that payments in former years were exces-
sive. As to the perpetuity of the tax, now is the time
to extract some pledge on that point. If, as is commonly
alleged, the income-tax is to serve as a temporary fund
for permanent relief to industry, let u 3 hear how far that
is to go, and at what point the claims of working people
with loss than 1501. a year are to be considered so far
satisfied that working people with more than 1501. are
no longer to be taxed for the sake of those below them.
How much more indirect taxation is to be reduced, and
how many more Kafir wars to be paid, on the strength
of the income-tax? These are the questions to come on
next Monday, and the week should not be permitted to
pass without some satisfaction upon them.
HEIZALD.—" There is something towards a new
great coat," said an Irishman when he hammered a nail
into the wall of his cabin. " How much?" asked his
wife. " Why, there's the nail to hang it on," was the
response. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires
is the new great coat. He has the nail—the income-tax!
Give us an income-tax, and we can carry on the financial
arrangements of the nation to the end of time. Dama-
ging, destructive, unpopular though the impost may be,
it is still a marvellously-convenient revenue with which
to carry through one of the most difficult jobs which a
Whig Administration ever assigned to itself. L)olc at
the Budget of last night. Of what is it composed?
Why the Minister—however well inelined—ba? ,otnlye
done a bit of petty larceny, when he might, "
same amount of moral effrontery, have eorainTtltte'l the
wholesale felony of stealing the batch of fiscal plans pro-
pounded by Lord Stanley, and approved of by the unani-
mous voice of the nation. This however, would not answer
the purposes of the Government. The littleness of mere
Whiggery sticks to them to the last. They have not the
courage to do more than pilfer some odds and ends of the
courageous and well-defined plan of the statesman who is
about to direct the destinies of the nation, and v:ehave only
to ask our readers, will they submit to the re-imposition
of the income-tax for three years? The response is in
the mouth of every man
who ajoys a revenue of more
than 1501. a year; and we have no doubt that the amend-
ment of Mr. Ferries, when proposed on Monday night,
will meet with a general assent. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer
str
might
ik well say that in his exposition there
was " nothing g —indeed, there was nothing
in
striking, save his knocking the nail upon the head, upon
which ho bad notning new to haug. The exposition of
the Right Hon. Gentleman is before the country. I.l:he