The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-23 00:00:00

THE BUDGET.-ADJOURNED DEBATE.

The debate was resumed by
Mr. J. M`GREGOR, who said the question before the
house was a general and not a party one, and he saw no
reason why the house should not come to a vote on the
resolution of Mr. Disraeli without hesitation or party
feeling.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he was an ardent sup-
porter of the right hon. member for the Oxford Univer-
sity in 1852, but he (Lord J. Russell) disclaimed now in
the most positive manner the charges brought by him
against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had
departed from the principles then laid down, and that
he bad falsified the promises then held out as to the abo-
lition of the income tax. He (Lord J. Russell) concurred
in the general principles of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's budget, and disproved, as far as possible, those
charges that had been made against the budget by Mr.
Gladstone. after remarking on the difficult position
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placci in, he said
that he had done well with reference to the income tax.
The noble lord then proceeded at some length to enter
into the policy of the late Sir R. Peel in 1842, and that
of Mr. Gladstone in 1853, contrasting them in their
agreements and disagreements with that of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who had not abjured the prin-
ciples of free trade which he had advocated all his life.
He (Lord J. Russell) did not agree with the Chancellor
of the Exchequer with reference to the duty on fire
insurances and on paper, both of which he (Lord
John Russell) wished to see reduced to a small
amount. He thought it, however, advisable not
to touch them now every one's attention was directed to
the income tax, and he doubted not that when the time
came, and the revenue could bear it, the Government
would remit the taxes alluded to. He held it was a
great point that they should adhere to the expectation
held out in 1853, that the income tax should cease in
1860. The income tax was a very powerful weapon,
and the reasons should be overpowering for its
continuance after 1860, because it was a species
of confiscation—(hear, hear)—taking a part of
a man's income without knowing how or where
he got, or how long he was likely to have it. (Hear,
hear.) It was a tax which nothing but to provide
national security should be had recourse to, and that
being obtained it should be abandoned as early as possible,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition with
reference to the tea and sugar duties, to carry the budget
of 1853 into effect. He considered the re-consideration
of the income-tax, as to its continuance, as beyond
the ability of any Chancellor of the Exchequer,
so as to give satisfaction, and induce the
people to receive it favourably. (near, hear.) He
(Lord J. Russell) was most desirous to see this tax come
to an end in 1860, and he could not see that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had interposed any obstacles to
it. (Hear, hear.) There was an erroneous impression
abroad as to the stocks of sugar and tea. There was now
an unusually large amount of tea on hand, amounting to
87,000,000 lbs., about 10,000,0001 be. of which would pay
duty on the day after the let April, so that we might
expect a benefit would be derived from the extra
consumption of tea on a reduction of duty. He thought
they need not fear about the future supply of
tea arising from the Canton difficulties, be.
cause that was an affair in the hands of the Government.
(Laughter.) He was of opinion that the reduction of
2d. on the pound iu tea would be no real benefit to the
consumer, but to the tea dealer. When they got into
supply, ho had no doubt the estimates might be greatly
reduced lbelow his extravagant estimates of 1843.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)