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

SUN,

1,856,000/., and the whole surplus was 1,892,0001,
and then fore he would only have a margin
of 40,0001. to meet the expenses of the Kafir
war. But, independently of that, he should not be act-
ing justly if he gave to house property the whole benefit
of the relief from taxation accruing from the surplus. The
representation of all the deputations to him:on the subject
was to be relieved from the unfairness of the assessment,
and from the obstruction offered to the circulation of air
and light. Had he proposed an ad valorem tax on houses,
he would have proposed a measure so different in prin-
ciple from the existing one, that he would have exposed
himself to reproach, therefore he had made that proposal
by which he secured to all, parties a considerable reduction.
He admitted that the fairest mode was to propose an
uniform rate upon all houses, but, although the
gentlemen of Marylebone complained that they were
not put on the footing of now houses, their coin-
pAints were more loud than just. Under the
present system they paid 90,000/. If they had been
placed on the principle of new houses, they would
have paid 71,000/., and under his proposed scheme they
would have paid 68,000/. But he admitted that the prin-
ciple of uniform rating of houses was just, and therefore
he would adopt it, and would 'propose to lay an uniform
rate of 9d. in the pound upon dwelling-houses, and 6d. in
the pound on houses containing shops, victualling houses,
or houses occupied by persons in the occupation of land.
He proposed to retain the exemption from taxation of
all houses of an annual value of less than 201., which
would give a relief of taxation to the amount of
1,120,000/. At present the income-tax was paid by no
farms under 3001., but the window-tax was paid by
farms under 2002, and therefore his proposal
would operate as a total relief to the farmer
from taxation who occupied a farm under 3001,
because he believed that no farm-house attached to an
estate ender 3001 a year paid more than 201 a year
rent. This reduction of taxation would be a great re-
lief to all the populous portions of the metropolis; but in
Belgrave-square there would be an actual increase in
the assessment of 101, but gentlemen residing there
would save the increase by the reduction which would
take place in the charge on their country houses,
In all the populous parts of the capital, ai.d in all the
provincial towns and cities, the relief would be very
great. There were 3;500,000 houses in this coun-
try—under his proposition 3,100,000 would be en-
tirely exempt from taxation, and the tax would be
levied upon 400,000 of the most valuable. He believed
that the house tax which he proposed was one of the
fairest that could be levied, and he expected from this tax
1,136,000/ He adhered to his original proposals with re-
gard to the reduction of the c' and timber duties,
by which he should lose 1,536,0001, and those reductions
would leave him a permanent margin of 356,000/, and for
the present year of 924,0001., in consequence of the window
and other duties which would be paid during the present
year up to July. He felt he should not be justified in
proposing any further reductions, looking to the state
of affairs at the Cape. The expense fur six months
there was estimated at 400,0001.. He hoped the war
would soon be put an end to, but they should
be prepared for the worst, and should, while
they had a surplus, retain funds in hand to meet con-
tingencies. These were the proposals he bad to submit
to the House, if they should consent to renew the
income-tax for a time. He would briefly allude to
the proposition of the Right Honourable Gentleman
opposite which had been brought forward in the fairest
possible manner, but he thought that the policy which had
been pursued for the last ten years was good. The income-
tax had been imposed in 1842 to meet a deficiency, but it
had been renewed in 1845 for a definite purpose, viz.,
to relieve industry from the burden of taxation; and
if that policy was to be carried out they
ought not to propose the repeal of that tax.
Any material reduction of this tax should be followed
by its abolition. There were objections to the inquisi-
torial nature of this tax, but these objections ap-
plied as strongly to a tax of ld. as to the present tax.
He believed that it we pursued our present line of policy
the revenue would so increase that we should be
enabled to set about reducing the income-tax.
The ordinary revenue last sear was precisely the same
as it had been in 1843-4, notwithstanding the re-
peal of 7,000,000/. of taxation in the Interval,
and therefore he hoped the House would con-
tinue that line of policy which had so im-
proved the condition of our population. He proposed
to relieve from taxation the labouring classes of the
community, the Right Honourable Gentleman pro-
posed to confine his relief from taxation
to that portion of the community which had adequate
means of subsistence, and for that purpose he proposed to
deprive the labouring man of the advantage of cheap
food by imposing a duty on corn. He attached more im-
portance politically than commercially to the mainte-
nance of the present system of commercial policy.
While we maintained that we should have our
fellow-subjects contented, we could laugh at the
apprehensions of popular disturbances which ap-
peared to have taken possession of the minds of some
Honourable Gentlemen, and we should be saved from
those disturbances which, had convulsed the rest of
Europe.
Mr. HERRIES considered the announcement of this
Budget as an announcement to the House and to the
country that the property tax was to be perpetual.
A lengthe❑ed discussion followed, in the course of
which Lord R. GROSVENuIt announced his intention to
move for a repeal of the duty on attorneys' certificates;
and Sir B. HALL declared that he would take the sense
of the House as to whether a house- tax should be im-
imposed or not.
The resolutions were then agreed to pro forma, and
reported to the House.
The Acts of Parliament Abbreviation Act Repeal Bill
was committed.

The House, after some other business, adjourned at a
Quarter-past Twelve o'clock until Monday.

Practically speaking, there is very little improve-
ment whatever in the second financial statement
brought forward last evening by the Right
Honourable Gentleman the ChANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER. Theoretically, nevertheless, it is entitled
to our warmest commendation. This distinction,
however, happens to be of the largest importance to
the community. Everybody remembers the old
saying, fine words butter no parsnips. And the
truth of the metaphor we are bold to say was never
more lamentably illustrated than it was yesterday in
the Commons House of Parliament. What, in brief,
were the emendations proposed by Sir CHARLES
IA 00D in the new edition of his Budget corrected and
revised ? Unfortunately they take very few words to
enumerate. He withdraws his projected changes in
the duties affecting the expense of lunatic asylums.
He consents to have nothing to do just now, as he
formerly intended, with the seed of grass and clover.
Added to which he refuses to abandon altogether his
crochetty scheme of following up the abolition of the
window-tax with the imposition of a tax upon houses,
moderating the latter it must, however, be acknow-
(edged rather considerably, and by consequence, too,
rather satisfactorily. Setting aside, for example, his
previous suggestions as to the scale of this same abo-
minable house-tax, he proposes in his new statement
to charge an uniform impost of 91 in the pound upon
old and new houses, and of 61 in the pound
upon shops and houses used for the occupa-
tion of land—retaining meanwhile the exemption of
all houses under 201. annual value. According to
this new and certainly, as far as it goes, improved
arrangement, the number of houses subjected to the
imposition wili be reduced from 500,000 to 400,000,
diminishing the amount cf the total duty by the sum
of 1,136,0001., and conferring at the same time a
great benefit upon shops and the other buildings
particularized. Considering that there are altogether
in the kingdom an aggregate of 3,500,000 houses,
and that 400,000 of the best'of these will be alone
charged, remitting the tax entirely upon 3,100,000—
there is here, at least, some cause for congratula-
tion to the community. More especially when it is
remembered that the Right Honourable Gentleman
claimed the public approval of the modification upon
the score that it constituted, according to his think -
ing, the nearest possible approach to a tax upon pro-
perty. That one declaration, in reality, appears to
us to comprise within itself the whole of the merit
discovered in the second financial statement of the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. For otherwise
the amended Budget is nothing better than its mise-
rable abortion of a predecessor. Let it be examined
calmly and dispassionately, and we maintain that its
imnroveznent will turn out to be, as we have already
said, rather theoretical than practical. It is
brought forward, it is true, with a decla-
ration of principles, such as, if properly car-
ried out, would tend to replace indirect
by direct taxation—taxation not upon the necessaries
of life, but upon the luxuries—taxation not touching
industry, but pressing upon property. The argu-
ments adduced yesterday evening by Sir CHARLES
WOOD went directly to the recognition of this as the
only sound basis of a national revenue. But, unfor-
tunately, while the principle was acknowledged, it was
in no appreciable manner acted upon in the structure
of the unlucky Budget. Never did financial reformer
' proceed to work more gingerly. Never was the ac-
ceptance of a great principle followed up by a more
(si eoftnoeyrrrnmoefi
former
es
proposalst improvements.t)a dh e rree
obstinacyp e
Sir
licn.gvvprta(;
)roshDi
.respecting
et
ch t
timber, but he insists that the income-tax must, at
limited
ne
a Heny
avowsl tt e„ fortthat
aat retained
e t
the
n onlyed nil lngi mone
efigr' coffee aaiaobl ninlyde.
equitable in principle—but he must hare the tax upon
incomes ! He dislikes anything like taxing the in-
dustry of the population—but he must still have the
tax upon incomes ! He considers property the only
true lied legitimate object of taxation—but he must
still insist most emphatically upon the retention of
the tax upon incomes ! Justice, reason, common
sense, everything must yield to the gratification of