The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-19 00:00:00

shall be confident that they will never shrink from or refuse
the burden required in order to sustain the honour and

provide for the security of the country. (Cheers.) The
right hon. gentleman concluded by proposing a formal vote
to the effect that £7,000,060 be granted to her Majesty out

of the Consolidated Fund for the public service.
The resolution was agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
should lay the other resolutions on the table, and he pro-
posed that the subject should be resumed on Thursday.
Sir H. WILLO UGHBY inquired whether the account
of expenditure—viz., £64,663,000, for 1858-59, was the cash
account, which was rather fallacious, or a bona fide real
account?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted

that there was a difference between the account presented
immediately on the close of the financial year and the ac-
count as it finally stood. That was inevitable with respect
to a vast expenditure which went all over the world, and
could not on the last day of the year be made up so per-

. -
fectly as it was eventually. Still, every possible effort was
made to make it up as clearly as possible.
Mr. HF,NLEY complained that, according to the right
_

hon. gentleman's statement, those who received dividends
would have to pay double the amount of income-tax.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that that was not so. The right hon. gentleman must
have misunderstood him. The mistake arose from this,
that, whereas income-tax generally was assessed for a year,
dividends were only for a half year.
Mr. MALINS said that after the speeches he had heard
from the right hon. gentleman, and the promises he had
made that the income-tax should cease in 1860, he (Mr.
Malins) was greatly disappointed at the proposal which
he had now made of turning back to this hateful tax, doub-
ling it not only for the future but for the time past, throw-
ing upon the public double payment of that tax in October

ne-xt.. (Hear- hear, from the Opposition.) He thought at
such a proposal the people of this country would be greatly
disappointed.
Mr. STEWART hoped, when this question came to be
discussed, the noble viscount at the head of the Government

would adhere to his expressed opinions, and not go into the
same lobby with the Chancellor of'the Exchequer. He (Mr.
Stewart) had not changed the opinions he formerly enter-
tained as to the immoral character of this tax. He thought
the right hon. gentleman should have informed the house
as to whether it was his intention to extend the legacy
duties to real property. It appeared that bonds on mort-
gages on land were exempt from the legacy duties in Scot-
land. That was not just to the rest of the country, and he
trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look in that
direction for some contributions towards the revenue.

Mr. BAXTER expressed his approval of the financial
statement. The fire insurance duty was one of the most in-

defensible taxes whidhthe people of this country had to bear.
It was 290 per cent. on the premium, the duty being 35.,
and the premium ls. 6d. per cent. It was a tax proposed in
1815, at the close of the French war, when the resources of
the country were stretched to the utmost possible limit, and
when the Government of the day grasped at every possible
source of income. (Hear.) It was a tax which discouraged
habits of forethought and of prudence, and which led to the
business of insurance being transacted by foreign companies
on the Continent instead of being transacted here ; and this
could not be preyented ; for although the attempt had
been made, it only resulted in closing some half-a-dozen
agencies. It was the same with marine insurance when
the duties were high. But when that evil was amended,
the business returned to its natural channels. He thought
it was an act of injustice to exempt farm produce, and
thus to favour the farmers at the expense 'of the rest of
the community. He did not ask the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to do anything in this budget, but he hoped that the
question would be fairly considered, and that on the next
occasion it would at least be reduced to something like ls.
(Hear.) He was perfectly satisfied that such a reduction
would not in the end be injurious to her Majesty's Treasury.
Mr. HORSMAN thought there had been some contra-
diction in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, as to
whether this, was really a peace expenditure or not. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that they might
have a war expenditure in the time of peace ; and he would
ask, whether such was not the case at the present moment?
(Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them,
that the increased expenditure was for the purpose of
strengthening our defences ; and the question arose whether
they were being strengthened in a proper manner—whether
it was the best plan to make these augmentations by in-
stalments, spread over a long series of year ? The fact was,
that ur der the present system the increased security was
almost imperceptible, while the increased taxation was alto-
gether ruinous. For instance, for the Dover fortifications
the estimate was £BOO,OOO, at any rate considerably over
half a million, while the vote for the present year was about
£200,000. (Hear.) What was feared was an attack from
our ally across the Channel. But did they suppose that
that ally would wait for 10 or 15 years till we had com-
pleted our fortifications ? (Hear.) Was that the way in
which he went about his business ?• (Hear.) No. Our
ally took his money at once when he went to war ; and, in
a couple of years did more to increase his power and to
consolidate his security, than we should accomplish by our
present sy-tem in twenty. (Hear, hear.) Now either
there was no danger, in which case they were doing too
much ; or there really was danger, in which case they
were doing too little. (Cheers.) If we had war with
France, it would come suddenly, and in such a case, at the
outset, people seemed to admit that we should be liable to
some great disaster. Everybody admitted that we should
be imperfectly defended at first, and that it would require
£10,000,000 to put us in a proper position. To have this
spread over 20 or 30 years, in the present state of Europe, is
simply an absurdity, and if we had it at once, of course, it
could not confe out of the taxation of the year. (Hear.)
We were in this position, therefore—we had a budget which
was neither a peace budget nor a war budget. It was a case
of urgency, and never was there a time when a lama im-
mediate expenditure would be productive of so much good.
He was anxious to support the right hon. gentleman's pro-
posal ; but so far as he could do it without appearing to
place himself in antagonism to the right hon. gentleman, he
should certainly like to take the sense of the house on the
question as to whether or not an expenditure which is a war
expenditure is one which we ought to attempt to go on year
after year defraying out of the ordinary income of the
country ? (Hear, hear.) He did not suppose the Govern-
ment would listen to such a question,' but he should like to
place his opinion upon record (Hear, hear.) In case of a
crisis the blame would not fall on those who were ready to
give, but onthose who had only to ask and receive, but who
neglected to provide for a calamity so clearly foreseen.
(Hear, hear.
Mr. J. E WART as representing a mercantile constituency
said nothing was so injurious to the interests of trade as to
be constantly tampering with the duties on the great neces-
saries of life. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would 1.•ok more to direct than to indirect taxation.
Mr. SALOMON said they had to meet an expenditure
which was neither of peace nor of war, but which was
forced upon the Government by the people of this country.
It was not desirable that we should imitate the nations of
the Continent, and go into the market to borrow whenever
any extraordinary expenditure had to be incurred. It was
a peculiar feature of this country that we looked our diffi-
culties in the face, and showed that the resources of the
country were such that when there was an extraordinary
expenditure to be, Met we resorted to ordinary tax-
ation with confidencOand success. He concluded by say-
ing that he did not think it possible that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer could have brought forward a budget more
clear, more straightforward, or more popular. (Hear.)
Except, perhaps, with to the fourpence. (Hear, and
laughter.)
Mr. SELWYN said he should wish to see the inequali-
ties of the income-tax reduced, but the necessities of the
right hon. gentleman were so great that ht presumed that it
was impossible at present. He would suggest to the right
hon. gentleman, however, that the Probate Act was sus-
ceptible of improvement by a simple piece of legislation.
At present, a man who died worth more than a million
sterling, was taxecZ only on the first million. The restric-
tion, he submitted, ought to be abolished.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
had now only to thank the committee for the generous
spirit in which the proposals had been received. Nothing
could be more gratifying to his own feelings personally, in
the position in which he had the honour to occupy, and for
his part, he was sure he should be most happy to meet, as
far as he could, a wish expressed by any number of gentle-
men in that house. He would observe, however, that he
hoped hon. gentleman would show a great deal of caution
before they committed themselves to the principle of the
income-tax being levied in quarterly payments. The ques-
tion came simply to this, whether this money, which was
intended for the service of the year, was to be raised within
the year, or not? With regard to the observation of the
hon. gentleman the member for Derby, that he would agree
with him, that it would be folly to notice the differences to
which he alluded, regard being had to the comparatively
unimportant character of the subject. Theright hon. gen-
tleman the member for Stroud entered upon a question of
some importance, which could not, however, be properly
discussed at that time. He agreed with him that it was
a bad system to distribute charges for permanent
works over many years, and it was with a view of
getting the new building on as fast as possible, that
the hon. member for Devonport made the first esti-
mates for the palace very large. With regard to the subject
of bonded warehousis, it was in itself so extensive, that it
might be said to have a literature of its own. He could
only say that he had always thought it desirable, wherever
it could be done with safety to the public interests, that ex-
tended facilities should be given in connexion with them.
(Hear, hear) With respect to the tariff and fire assurance,he should very much like to make the desired alterations,
and he knew that all our commercial reforms, numerous
and satisfactory as they had been of late years, would not
be complete until these and other serious blots were re-
moved from the statute book. A margin, however, was
wanted for those great purposes. The hon. member for
London had urged him on the subject of the tariff. On
three former occasions ho had shown how desirous he was
of bringing it into a state more conformable to the require-,
merits of the day, and he could assure the hon. member
that he wanted no spurring on that point. The hon. mem-
ber for Stamford had observed in reference to the tea and
sugar duties, that they expired on the Ist of April next. He
(Mr. Gladstone) was doubtful whether it would not be more
satisfactory to the mercantile world to introduce a bill on
the subject now, in anticipation of the event. It was a legal
expiration, and he should like to know the views and
feelings, with reference to the subject, of those who were
most conversant with, and interested in it, in order that all
disturbance might be avoided. He had now only to move
that the chairman report progress.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he wished to say a few words with
a view to obtain a prospect of some relief for the labouring
classes, He agreed with the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer is what he had said as to the
unjust pressure of indirect taxation on the poor. But the
right.hon. gentleman said nothing of the unjust pressure
of the income tax en persons of small means. It was to
the working classes that he himself belonged, as a profes-
sional man, and for them he would speak. He would
take the case of a man who had £l,OOO a-year from land,
and of another who had £l,OOO a-year from his own pro-
fessional exertions. He would supposo the two men to be
40 years of age, and they wero taxed alike. At the age of
42, however, the professional man was struck with paralysis.
and there was an end at once of his income. How unjust,
therefore, that they should be taxed equally. He (Mr.
Roebuck) said that the professional man was unjustly
taxed. The right hon. gentleman had an objection to in-
direct taxation, because it fell heavily on the poor working
man ; yet here was a clearly proved case of injustice to the
poor loan, whose income depended on the precarious tenure
of his brains, for wpm the right hon. gentleman could ex-
press no syntpathy. The reason was, that their numbers
wore few, and hence their case commanded no attention
and received no redress ; but he would tell the right hon.,
gentleman that so long as that injustice remained uncor-
rected. so long would the class for whom he spoke continue
to look upon the rigrtt hon. gentleman as a coward, who
was afraid to do them justice.
The house then resumed, and the chairman reported pro-
gress and obtained leave to sit again.
SUPPLY.

Mr. MASSEY brought up the report of the committee