The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-18 00:00:00

mate the expenditure for the future at 50,785,0001., and
hope to make a saving on general estimates of 978,9851.,
and on the naval expenditure of 776,0001. I
consequently see my way to an income of
50,154,9004, notwithstanding the remission of taxes
on bricks and other commodities, and may therefore cal-
culate, I think safely, on a surplus of 2,521,000/. on the
sth of April. The Customs, I calculate, will produce
9,400,000/. There will be a farther decrease this year,
owing to the passing of the Act last session, which did not
come into full operation till the 10th of October, and
parties, no doubt, reserved their purchases till that
period.—(Hear, hear.) The probable extent of loss of
the full year was estimated at about 500,000/., and the
experience of the year fully justified the estimate.
—(Hear, hear.) In the two quarters ending in Ja-
nuary, the amount of the stamp duties was 245,0001
loss than the corresponding period of former years, and
as far as the present quarter is concerned, I
believe there will be an equal falling off,
making 250,000/. for the half-year, and 500,000/. for the
entire year.—(Hear, hear.) Allowing for that reduction,
I take the estimate for the yield of the stamp duties at
6,310,0004—(Hear.) The taxes and the property-tax I
take at the same amount as last year, namely taxes,
4,348,000/, property-tax, 5,380,0004 In the Post-office
there will be 10,0001. more this year, namely, 830,000/.
The Crown lands stand upon the same footing as last
year, though I think there will be some slight
redaction of expenditure. The Crown lands then
will yield 160,0004; the navy receipts will be
262,000/. ; old stores are rather higher than
last year, namely, 480,0001. These items put to-
gether will make the gross income of the whole year
59,140,000/.—(Cheers.) Sir, I now come to the
charges, and here it will probably afford the House
some satisfaction, if I state that there will ire a
decrease in the charge for debt, arising out of a very
large purchase of terminable annuities that has already
been effected.—(Hear, hear.) There will also be some
reduction in the charge of the consolidated
fund. The charge on the funded debt,
including annuities, will be 27.688.000/.
and the charge for interest on Exchequer. bills 404,0001.,
making together 28.092,0004—(E-tr. hear.) The charge
on the consolidated fund will be 2,600.0001.. making the
gross charge on the funded debt and c fle,lidated fund,
taken together, 30,692,0004—(Hear.) The charge for the
army, including the commissariat department, I take at
6,593,9451.; for the navy, at 6,537,0554; and for the
ordnance, at 2,424,1711.—(Hear, hear.) There is here
some redaction of expenditure, but there will be no
reduction of force.—(Hear, hear.) The Government
feel that in the present unsettled state of matters
on the continent of Europe, it would be incon-
sistent with the best interests of the country to reduce
tha amount of the existing forces.—(Cheers.) I am
aware that the whole world appears to be in a compara-
tive state of peace, bet it must nevertheless
be remembered that only a few years have
elapsed since we saw some millions of men under arms
in the very centre of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) lam free
to confess that of late years nothing has occurred to
disturb the peace of this country, and I have
certainly never been alarmed on that account
at the circumstances that were passing around
us; but there is the widest difference between unneces-
sary alarm and an absurd economy.—(Hear, hear.)
Those who are best acquainted with these matters know
that a great many of our arsenals are not quite in an elk-
cient state of defence, and therefore any reduction of our
forces would involve a responsibility which we are not
prepared to encounter.—(Hear, hear.) For my part
my conviction is this, however strong, or however just
and general the feeling for economy and a
reduction of expenditure may be in this House,
it will still be the duty of British Legisla-
tors never to leave their country in an unprotected
condition.—(Cheers.) Sir, last year, after certain reduc-
tions had been made, the estimate for both services was
20,012,000/. It will probably this year be 19,555,000/.
Therefore, deducting the vote takers last year for naval
excess, and the absolute reduction in the expenditure of
this year under the three heads of naval, military, and
ordnance services, there will be 246,0004, or nearly a
quarter of a million, and the reduction would have
been more but for two causes, some of which were
of a permanent and others of a temporary
nature. lion. Gentlemen will remember that the First
Lord of the Admiralty announced last year that it was
thought advisable, for the improvement of the condition
of the sailor, that the allowance of grog should be
stopped and money compensation given. It was found,
also, that the provision allowed to the navy was
not so great as in other branches of the naval service,
and it was thought desirable to improve the condition
of the sailor in those respects. Gentleman who sat on
the Committee on army estimates will also remember
that a question was raised as to the rations allowed to
the soldier on service abroad, and that alterations were
recommended. The additional charge which arises in
this respect is 60,000/. These two items, then, have
occasioned an increased expenditure of 140,0004 There
are some small additional charges, which are only of a
temporary nature, arising from annuities, from the fact
that this year includes one day's more pay, and also
from annuities chargeable on certain lands belonging to
the Ordnance in Ireland. The Miscellaneous Estimates
voted last year amounted to 4,650,0001. Of course it is
impossible for me to say what the amount of the Miscel-
laneous Estimates will be this year. There will be this
year, als,,, charges of a temporary nature which I
propose to take from these estimates, which they
have not borne in former years. I propose
that the expense of taking the census, which in former
years was borne by the local rates, should be included
in the estimates, that being an object of public interest
which it is quit,- fair and reasonable should be paid out
of the public Exchequer.—(Hear.) I believe the expense
will be 110,000/. I propose, then, in round numbers,
leaving room for any alterations which may be
made in the course of the year, to take the mis-
cellaneous estimates at 4,000,0001. for the year.
I estimate the probable expenditure then at
50,247,1711., and taking the inc, ire-. to be as
I have already stated, there will be an estimated surplus
of 1,892,000/.—(Hear, hear.) The first poitit which I
will bring to the consideration or the Committee is to
show how these estimates bear on the main
question
_which I have to submit to it, viz, the
renewal of the income-tax.—(Elear.) The amount of
the income-tax may be taken in round numbers at
5,400,000/. If the Committee refuse the vote which I
am about to submit to tbem, there will be a falling off
in the revenue of 5,500,0004, that sum including
100,0001., the amount of the reduction under the
Stamp Act of last session. Now, deducting that from
the probable amount of surplus revenue, which I have
stated at 1,890,0001., there will be a deficiency to the
extent of 3,610,000/. In the ensuing year it would not
be quite so much, because half of the income-
tax for the ensaing year is yet receivable, via.,
2,700,000/., therefore, in the ensuing year, the
deficiency would amount to 910,0001.; but in the subse-
quent year, and every year thereafter, supposing there
be no improvement in the revenue, and no reductions
made, the excess of expenditure over revenue would be
what I have stated in round numbers, 3,600,0001.
When Sir Robert Peel proposed the renewal
of the income-tax in 1342, the House would
remember, he proposed it on the assumption that
there would be a deficit for the year of 2,100,0004 Now
if that was a sufficient ground for re-imposing it in 1142,
surely the fact he had stated would be con-
sidered more so as regarded the present year.
In that year I opposed the imposition of the income-tax,
for I thought then, as I think now, that the grounds upon
which it was asked were not sufficient. But I stated at
the same time, that if it were to be applied to
reducing the duties upon timber, corn, and sugar, then
I should have been prepared to support it. I will say,
however, that the use which Sir R. Peel made of the
income-tax when he got it fully satisfied him in asking
for it. In the years 1845 and 1343, I supported the re-
newal of it, and now entertain the same opinion as I did
then, and wishing to carry out that course of commercial
policy, and from which the country has benefited so
much, I again propose the renewal of it for a limited
period. The duties on timber, corn, and sugar having been
reduced, to the great benefit of all the consumers in this
country, the opinion which I have always entertained
fully justifies me in proposing their re-imposition. If the
House, however, is not prepared to adopt this
course, let me suggest to them what must be the
consequence; there must either be a deficiency
in the revenue or there must be a reduction in the
expenditure to that amount; and I do not believe that
any person who has looked into these matters
can entertain the opinion that out of an ex-
penditure of fifteen millions it is possible to effect
a reduction of 34- millions. If this be not so,
it will be necessary to impose new taxes to
that amount, and I ask if the present disposition
of the country is at all favourable to the imposition
a new taxes? With the common concurrence
of the House of Commons we hare been repealing and
reducing taxes which pressed heavily upon the industry
or the consuming powers of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) I do not believe that it will
possible to re-impose those taxes, but, on
the contrary, I believe that many still remain on the
statute book which it would be desirable to 'wince,
which either in their amount or in their 'node of levy-
ing- are far more objectionable, •
than this. thosewhen oppressive, and unjust
taxes have been reduced or
repealed, upon raw materials as well as the
duties which press upon
duties
taken off, when the
onimports and excise
have been so reduced that the consumer can
no longer be said to be hardly pressed upon, then the
question will arise, whether it will he bet :r to relieve
the consumer still further, or to take off ta portion of
the burden upon property. But until that is obtained, and
eve have carried out to the full our
new
of commercial policy, I hope that neitherthsisystem
another House of Commons will ever refuse that tax
which has been so beneficial to this country.
I do not think it will be advisable that
I should at present go into the details
of my proposal, a further opportunity will
be afforded for that. I have remon-
strances enough against various portions of
the income-tax, suggesting the reduction of Sche-
dule A. the abolition of Schedule B, the injustice
of tkhodnle D, and I am perfectly- ready to admit that
exceedinglygood arguments may be advanced by
various Interests against alt except Schedule C. But,
after all, I have come to the conclusion that, under all
circumstances the fairest and most just mode is that of
placing one uniform rate upon all descriptions of income.
A question may be raised also upon the mode of levying
the tax under Schedule B, but on a future
oemsion I shall be ready to discuss that
question as fully as it can be' discussed.
But: the time will arise for
of
et(bduoiseciaburos,sion of these ques-
tion 3 when the discussion
income-tax colmeso-
peel y before the House.—
therefore, that the same Course hear.) think,
oueht to be
with r'espect to
adop red in the present year
that tai that was adopted on formearkeocwciatsbions.
I have only one further observation to make
re-
spect to the income-tax, and that_ is, that I propose

for the limited time the renewal of the income-t ix
should take place, that the same exemption should be
renewed with respect to Ireland as it had hitherto
been.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " No, no.")
Because I believe, after the shock which
property had had in that country, that such a course
would be the wisest and best.—(Hear, hear.) Added to
that, I think it would be under the circumstances
impolitic and cruel not to make that exemp-
t,.on.—(llear, hear.) I propose of course to re-
new for the same time the stamp duties in
Ireland as heretofore, and I propose to renew
the whole for the term of three years.
I will also ask the House to come to a decision upon this
important subject as early as possihe, because it must
be obvious that the financial scheme of the year will
depend upon the renewal or non-renewal of the income-
tax.—(Hear, hear.) If the tax is renewed, then I shall
go on with the other measures I propose; but
if it is not, then it will give to those Gentlemen
who will fill the offices we have now the honour
to hold, time to consider the propositions they
should bring before the House.—(Laughter and cheers.)
Now, Sir, my Honourable Friend the Member
for Montrose asked me the other day to make
a return, or rather, perhaps, a motion, as
I understood him, of the different items of our
taxation, but my Hon. Friend hardly seemed aware that
he had imposed upon me one of the hardest
tasks ever imposed upon the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—because upon
this subject the most learned people differed.—(Loud
aid continued laughter.) One party stated that he
thought the malt-tax was paid by the producer
of barley. Now, lam of opinion that the malt duty
is paid by the consumers of ale.—(Laughter.) Then,
with respect to tobacco, it seems to be thought
that the duty upon it was inflicted upon the
occupiers of land. Never was there a greater
fallacy; why, the fact was, that the duty was upon the
foreign producer. Then, with respect to tithes, a great
difference of opinion existed. It must therefore be clear
to my Hon. Friend that he has called upon me to
produce a return, to do which the greatest difficulty
existed.—(Hear, hear.) I am willing to state my
impression on any question I cau to the
House, and acting in that spirit I have had
prepared a return of the many items of taxation,
and am prepared to state what that document is to
the House, in order that it may afford Gentle-
men some notion of what course I should pursue.
I have taken the finance account up to January last.
I have taken the gross receipts of Customs, merely
taking the amount paid in duty. I have taken the same
course with regard to the Excise, making certain
omissions. First of all, I have taken the
revenue on articles of food, butter, cheese, oranges,
sugar, and many other things, producing an
income of 20,000,0001., then I have taken the Excise,
tobacco, spirits, &c., which produced nearly 11,000,000/.,
so that it will be perceived that the whole pro-
duce derived from what we eat, drink, and
smoke is 31,820,728/.—(Great laughter.) On gloves,
books, opium and other articles of similar manu-
facture, the returns were 246,2481., showing an advan-
tage on that department of 764,000/. Then I come to
the landed classes, people of property, on whom were
levied bills of exchanges and the costs for leases,
and all the other charges to which land
was liable, and that I find, . including property
tax, to amount to 35,100,0371. The trading classes
have their own peculiar burthens—there are bills
of exchange, promissory notes, insurances, and all
the various charges to which a trading community
is liable. These I find have produced about 4,650,000/.
Then, I think that railways ought to bear
their fitting proportion; the ways and means
by them bring in 648,0001., making a total
income from similar sources of 1,491,000/.—(Hear,
hear.) The whole amount of public income derived from
the trading and landed classes is consequently about
12,455,0001., and from parochial rates something more
than 13,000,0001. Now with the 13,000,0001. derived from
parochial rates I have nothing to do. The amount,
then, with which I am justified in dealing is
45,415,0001., so that, in fact, if I were only to
take the surplus, and allow the income-tax to die
out, there would be a deficiency instead of a surplus, and
the only sum with which I could deal would be 850,0001.
Hon. Gentlemen would remember the different circum-
stances that prevailed in 1845 and 1848. If the difficulty
was great in 1848, how greatly was it increased in 1849.
If such was the case then greater reason prevails now,
and I am, I conceive, perfectly justified at the
present time in adopting the expedient of 1845.
Having thus stated the general position of our taxation,
I:should wish to say %few words on a proposal which
I see was brought forward elsewhere, namely, that there
should be an equal or a new division of taxation. Now
I think, in the present state of the House, such a result
as this would be difficult to arrive at, because I appre-
hend my Hon. Friends behind me are anxious to remove
duties from articles of consumption and the materials of
raw manufactures, and re-impose them directly upon
the accumulated property of the couutry—(Hear)—
while Honourable Gentlemen opposite, judging from
what they say, will be equally anxious to remove
taxes from property, and impose them in some
other shape.—(Hear, hear.) I do not think there-
fore that any large scheme of this sort would meet
with the general favour of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
An Hon. Friend of mine has also observed elsewhere,
that the surplus we have in hand results from an increase
in our taxation.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I do not
think this is the case—(Hear, hear)—but the Hon.
Gentleman followed up his remark with a proposal that
there should be a general change in our mode of levying
j the taxes.—(Hear, hear.) It may be said, however, of
finance as of politics, that sudden revolutions are inju-
rious, though in 1842 I agreed to a change in cur fiscal
system, but the policy which was then commenced I
believe is now firmly established, and instead
of reversing it we ought to pursue it, year by
year, until those principles propounded in 1842 are fully
developed.—(Hear.) That was the course Government
had followed ever since it had come into office,
and I believe it is the course best calculated to
improve the interests of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, having at the request of my Hon. Friend
behind me endeavoured to explain the whole tenure of
our taxation, and I hope not to the dissatisfaction
of the House, I will pass on to notice other
topics which it is desirable I should bring
under notice.—(Hear, hear.) I have stated that
the probable surplus of our taxation next year will be
1,890,000/. ; and it is necessary that I should here ad-
vert to a remark which I see was made elsewhere, to the
effect that we have had a lasting surplus without
any reduction in the taxes.—(Hear.) Now, I do not
think that is fair, considering what we really have done;
for if Hon. Gentlemen will compare the income of the
year 1847 with that of the year 1850, they will find that
there has been a great reduction of taxation in one way or
other, while there has been an increase in the revenue
of 739,000/., and a reduction in the cost of the army,
navy, and ordnance of the difference between 18,500,0001.
in 1547 and 15,391,000/. in 1850.—(Cheers.) The
reduction of expenditure in the three years, therefore,
has been no less than 3,100,000/.—(Cheers)---and I
think, after that, the House will do us the justice to say
that we have not been unmindful of economy,—
(Cheers.) Now, Sir, I come to the proposal I
shall make to the House, on the supposition
of course, that the income-tax is to be continued. In
the year 1845, Sir Robert Peel pioposed to renew
the income-tax, and stated what he should do if that
renewal was granted. I propose to follow his ex-
ample, and to state to the House what we are
prepared to do in the event of the House renewing the
income-tax.—(Hear, hear.) Of course it is obvious to
everybody that what we propose to do must fall to the
ground if the income-tax is not renewed.—
(Hear, hear.) Now I think the first claim
upon us points to some reduction of our debt.—(Cheers.)
I stated last year that since the year 1830 we had bor-
rowed 35,000,000/. ; we have since then paid off
8,000,0004, and therefore up to this time, in 20 years, we
have increased our debt by 27,000,0001, and I do not think
we ought to stop short now in endeavouring to reduce
that sum.—(Hear, hear.) I am one of those who
think we ought to make great efforts for the re-
duction of our debt. I do think that year
by year, as we maintain a reasonable surplus, we ought
at the same time to make some reduction, however
slight, in the debt.—(Hear, hear.) Now, I am
happy to say that in the course of the last
year we have paid off the amount we borrowed two
years ago.—(Hear, hear.) The House will remember
that in the year 1848, we borrowed 2,000,000/., and on
the sth of January] last we had not only paid off that
sum, but the interest too, making together 2,330,0004
The House will admit that it would be essential to main-
tain a certain portion of the surplus in order to reduce
the amount of taxation. lam not disposed to put that
portion very high. I stated some years ago, when I sat
on the other side of the House, and I have not since changed
my opinions, that I thought in round numbers one-
fiftieth part of this income should be held back to pay
off the national debt. Now, with regard to the surplus
available for the reduction of taxation I have had a
great number of applicants I believe within the last
month I have received deputations on the subject of
every description of taxes, all stating that the particular
taxes which they paid were the most partial, iniquitous,
and unjust. Some Hon. Gentlemen in this House came
with mire than one deputation, and yet made the very
same statement on different taxes, any one of which, if
repealed, would have absorbed more than the whole
surplus.—(Hear, and laughter.) Among these various
taxes I had to decide which, on the whole,
if repealed, would benefit the country. It is
quite obvious that it would be perfectly impossible for
me to reduce taxation to anything like the amount
stated; but I hope parties will give me credit that
I am desirous at the earliest possible opportu-
nity to remove the different inequalities of
the particular taxes of which they complained.
I fully admit there were many claimants whom I should
have been glad to meet if I had had a larger surplus.
Their claims are postponed till a more favourable op-
portunity, but they must recolle(:t some taxes must
come off before others, and I hope they will think I am
proceeding in the direction they wish, and I only trust
that the revenue in future years will so increase 'is to
enable the House
which have to go fur:her in the course
of reduction.
I must say, of all the claims
been put in, that which bears on the
lower claastseasnoyerrrahtte,
well-doing, the health,f and the morals of the
.srusethtontlem :4 our consideration.
duties as is calculated to that end. I mean,
alters:
I,lonw of, w thehen windowsta
of the
te
the
year, it
must
window- tex i 3 1 856 000/
be obvious; that 'an *
the winds; e-tax would rb--
conditional repeal of
solve the whole surplus which tye have in our
possession; and I must confess, objt ,ctionable as any
Gentleman may think the tax, it woul d be most unjust
to the classes who pay other tax es, if the whale
surplus was used for such a red uction ; and I
will only observe that those obj ections to the
tax in a sanitary point of view :might be alto-
gether removed without a remission of any part of the

tex. I, however, don't propose so to deal_ with the tax,
because I do intend to give great relief in respect to it,
and I am the more inclined to do so, because I believe
it presses more hardly on houses in the country than in
the town—(Laughter)—and I am not unwilling to that
extent to meet the wishes of the Hon. Gentleman op-
posite.—(Laughter from the Protectionist benches.)
The Hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. Bankes), who is one
of the most eloquent supporters of the reduction of
the window-tax, and he might fairly be taken as a good
exponent of the opinions of country gentlemen on this
matter, and therefore I hope it will be considered I am
meeting their views on one of their most impor-
tant grievances. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The question is one not of putting on a new tax, but of
retaining one to which the people are well accustomed—
(Laughter)—and to which the various interests
concerned have accommodated themselves. Be it
observed too, that the property upon which
this tax is levied, has been relieved during the last
few years to a considerable extent, from house property
there has been taken off the whole of the inhabited
house duty, as well as a great portion of the brick and
glass duties. I think, therefore, that independently of
other considerations, in this respect the property which
would ,be benefited is not one which has the greatest claim
to relief. Any gentleman, I think, who will take a circuit
in the suburbs of this great metropolis of a few miles,
and see the immense number of new houses springing
up on every side, will say that this kind of property
does not look as if it were particularly in
want of relief. But I must admit, at the same
time, with a view to sanitary: considerations, that the
mode of levying the tax is most objectionable, as it in-
duces persons to shut up window after window, and
confine themselves in an atmosphere most prejudicial to
health. The tax as strictly levied is levied upon every open-
ing, and I hear from thoee gentlemen who have visited the
dwellings of the poor, that nothing contributes more to
engendering epidemic diseases in large towns than the
deprivation of air and light to which the window-tax
contributes in some degree; and I think that now we
have given to the labouring classes increased labour
and means of subsistence we must now improve
their lodgings and morals. I propose to alter altogether
the mode of levying the assessment, and substitute in its
place a tax according to the value of the house, to be
applied in the first instance to all new houses. lam
aware that during the continuance of the old house-tax
many objections were made to the mode of carrying it
and more particularly to the system of taking the test
of value from the amount of rent paid. It was said
that small houses in town were then often forced to pay
more than large ones in the country. On the whole,
however, I am inclined to think that these objections,
however specious, are ectirely without foundation. A
large house is not always the test of wealth; but on
the contrary, and a man of wealth will always be able
to pay a heavy rent for a house, so that after all the
fairest test is the amount of rent paid. Other modes of
levying the tax have been suggested. I have been
urged to levy it not according to the num-
ber of windows, but according to the cubical
contents of the house or the area of the openings in it.
But I think that this mode would be liable to the same
sanitary objection, and would equally prevent us from en-
suring to the poorer classes large and airy dwellings.
I propose, then, to adopt the amount of rent paid as the
value of the house, taking this as a rule with regard to all
new houses; but I shall feel it absolutely necessary to
make some considerable modifications in applying it to
existing houses. I have benefited by the lesson which
I acquired last year in attempting to remedy some of the
anomalies in the stamp duties, and, however I may
desire to remove all anomalies in this tax, I cannot afford
to do so fully without sacrificing an amount of
revenue which I cannot afford to do at, present.
I propose, therefore, to modify the tax as it at present
exists. It is impossible to do more without making very
great changes, and which I must confess I am not prepared
to do. The present tax was levied upon the number of
windows, and it has been proposed that the tax should
be made -epee value, which would be most difficult, be-
cause according to the situation of the houses
the value would change.—(Hear, hear.) I think, there-
fore, it would be unwise to adopt such a course as that.
The proposal I make will be this. Isbell propose that upon
all new houses of the annual value of 201. a year and
upwards, that the house-tax should be cal-
culated at a certain rate, and that all houses
now paying window-tax, but of a value not
amounting to 20/. a year, shall be exempt altogether
—(Hear, hear)—that all houses paying the window-
tax, if their yearly value amounts to upwards
of twenty pounds a year, shall pay to the
house-tax, two-thirds of what they now pay to the
window-tax.—(Laughter.) Of course Honourable
Members will understand that houses under twenty
pounds, whatever number of windows they may have,
will pay no duty.—(Hear, hear.) Now, the old rate of
the house-tax was as follows:—Upon houses be-
tween 101. and 201. a year, Is. 2d.; upon houses
between 201. and 401., 2s. 3d. ; and upon
houses of 40/. a year and upwards 2s. 10d. Now I have
calculated as near as I can what will be the
amount equivalent to two-thirds of the win
dow-tax, and I have calculated that it wi

• be met by houses above 201. a year paying ls. in the
pound, so that the classes of houses I first noticed as
paying ls. 21 will have to pay nothing and the last 15.6 d.
There are certain houses that have advantages, I allude
to dwelling houses where shops are attached. I; propose
,uch, instead of paying Is., shall pay td., and I
propose to give the same indulgence to beer houses and
farm houses occupied by tenants.—(Hear, hear.' The re-
, .ult of this, I believe, will be to exempt altogether from
taxation upwards of 120,000 houses that now contribute
to the window-tax—(Hear, la(-ar,)—and to exempt the
• great majority of farm - houses, the result
of all which will b 2 a loss to the revenue of 700,0001.
It is especially desirable that the number of those houses
should be specified, and I find that the whole number of
the form-hou.es which will he relieved from the duty
is ab )ut 120,000, or to speak in round numbers
about one- third of those which are taxed ut the
present time.—(Hear, hear.) The imposition of this
duty would, therefore, affect no interest but that which
was well able to bear it, and would materially aid in
furthering the benefit which it was intended should ac-
crue to the community through the remission of the win-
low-tax.—(Hear.) The next duty to which I propose
to draw the attention of the House is that upon coffee.
(Hear, hear.) I found that during the last year the
duty upon this article bad fallen off to the amount of
77,0001., and I believe that the origin of that falling off
is to be ascribed to the admixture of that article with
chicory.—(Hear, hear.) I do believe that coffee is largely
intermixed with chicory, but I am by no means
convinced that the coffee is thereby deteriorated.—
(Hear, her.) lamby no means convinced that the in-
termixture of the two substances of chicory and coffee is
either unplesant to the taste or deleterious to the health.
—(Hear, hear.) Last week I had the pleasure of
receiving a deputation of gentlemen interested in the
chicory trade, and they assured me that such is the
fact.—(Hear.) But I have another reason for inquiring
into this matter. I cannot say that lam insensible to
the attacks on my Ministerial capacity; but I am ac-
cused of having an interest iu the growth of chicory.—
(Hear, and.laughter.) I can assure Hon. Members that,
to my knowledge I never grew a blade of chicory in my
life, or ever encouraged the growth on the property
which anywhere belongs so me. The only
place where I ever saw it growing upon,
to my knowledge, was on the wayside. I trust,
therefore, that I shall be excused from an interested mo-
tive, and at the same time be pardoned for an allusion
to myself.—(Loud cheers.) Ido not myself believe that
chicory has any evil influence upon the effect of coffee.
I look upon it rather as a benefit, inasmuch :as
its use tends to reduee the rates of coffee, nor does it,
in my opinion, in any way tend to reduce the value of
that wholesome beverage to. the working classes.
Some of the coffee adulterated with chicory
was put into my hands by certain parties,
and I could not in any case see the difference between
the adulterated and the real substance. In answer to

my inquiries I was told that real coffee eould not here:
tailed for less than from ls. to ls. 4d. a pound, but that
by the admixture of chicory it could be sold at from 10d.
to Is. 4d., and that the best coffee could not, under any
circumstances, be sold for less than is. 4d. to ls. Bd.
Now I have upon former occasions inclined to the

opinion that practical men are the best judges of prac-
tical matters, and Messrs. Harris and Co., with whom I
have been in communication, plainly expressed a similar
opinion. lam not about to say that because the admix-
ture of chicory is not injurious, that I am disinclined to
reduce the duty on coffee—(Hear)—for I believe that the
doing so would be a great benefit to the working classes.
I do not think this is quite fair, and I therefore propose
to meet it to some extent by reducing the duty on coffee.
—(Hear.) I hold in my hand a return of the quantities
of foreign coffee introduced for home consumption in
the last five years. The total quantity of colonial
coffee introduced was, in

Ibs.
1846 ... 23,794,000
1847 27,000,000
1848 ... 30,000,000
1849 ... 29.760,000
1850 ... ... 28,892,000
there being in the course of last year an increase of co-
lonial coffee to the extent of 5,000,000 of lhi.—(Hear.)
The case with foreign coffee was far different. The
duty of 6d. on foreign coffee, compared with the duty of
4d. on colonial, gave very different results, the returns
being in

- lbs.
1846 ... ... 13,000,000
1347 ... ... 10,439,000
11148 ... 6,296.000
1849 ... ... 4,650,000
1850 2,336,000
So that while the importations of colonial coffee had in-
creased to the extent of 5,000,000 of lbs., the importa-
tion of foreign coffee had fallen off upwards of
10,000,000 of lbs.—(Hear, hear.) Now I do not
believe that the differential duty is of much
value to the colonial dealer and I propose there-
fore, with the view of doing justice to the con-
sumer, and with the view of inducing the producer to
give to a customer a better article, to reduce the duty
upon both foreign ard colonial coffee, as well
as to equalize them.—(Cheers.) At present
the duty is 4d. on colonial, and 64. on foreign, and I
propose to reduce the duty upon both to an equal duty
o'c' 3d. per lb.—(Cheers)—while I also propose to
place a uniform duty of 3d, per lb. upon chi-
cory.—(Hear, hear.) The loss which I estimate
hear.)es !
mean foreign
Th
will result from this reduction may amount to 176,0001.
—(Hear.) The next proposal I have to mike to the
House has reference to another article which gave rise
toeaan dealgoodof
timber.d
isc_ussi(ounearl,ast s
great shipbuilders of the country have been open, I
think, to an unfair competition with the foreigner, who
builds with untaxed timber; and experience has shown
us that the present system of taxation . ope-
rates very seriously against the British builder;
for I find that while the number of first-class ships