Skip to main content

Inhabited House Duty Bill

Volume 117: debated on Monday 30 June 1851

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Order for Committee read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

* said: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) has very unexpectedly made a very unfair attack upon me. The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that it is not open to us to impugn the authority of a mere Vote of this House; that if once its opinion is expressed in that manner—[Mr. MITCHELL: Without opposition.]—Without opposition—I am not aware that the qualification of the hon. Member makes any difference in the question he raises; or in the constitutional principle at stake. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to maintain that a vote of this House is equivalent to an Act of Parliament? It has always been assumed that when a Ministry proposed to this House to sanction by a mere Vote an alteration in the tariff, it did so under circumstances so well matured and considered, that the country might usually assume that the Vote thus called for would afterwards be ratified in the form of a Bill. No doubt could in general be entertained that such an anticipation would be justified. Still it never has been held for an instant that a Vote of this House on a Customs question was equal to a solemn decision by an Act of the Legislature. What, then, has happened this Session? What the circumstances that have occurred? We have assented to certain alterations in the tariff under quite different circumstances from those under which the Bill to sanction those alterations is now brought before the House. The circumstances of the revenue have greatly changed between the one period and the other. The condition of the revenue to a certain degree is now precarious, and the surplus which was announced by the Minister at the commencement of the Session, and which he distributed in the mode which seemed best to him—one of these being the remission of the Timber Duties referred to by the hon. Gentleman—has become essentially provisional. In this state of affairs, then, I thought I was not taking an unusual course, but, on the contrary, one in accordance with the custom of this House, before we were prorogued, and sent back to our constituents, if I endeavoured that we should clearly understand our financial position. That has always been considered a subject on which it was most important that we should possess the most clear conceptions, and one peculiarly the care of the House of Commons. If we return to our constituents now, we may give them, as regards the exercise of our functions in many important matters, a clear, and, upon the whole, I hope, a satisfactory report. When the House met it was announced to us that one important interest in the country was suffering great distress. As to the causes of that distress, Gentlemen might be divided; but no doubt was entertained of the fact, or of the expediency of discussion. And no one can deny that it has been discussed amply this Session, and that the House by considerable numbers on both sides, by their speeches or their votes, have shown the constituencies of the country that it has taken pains to arrive at a conclusion on the subject. So, also, with that all interesting subject, the Papal Aggression. However contrary may be our opinions, there is no doubt that we have pursued a course which has conducted us to a result which the country can understand. Government, for instance, has brought in a Bill which they considered an efficient Bill, but which, on this side of the House, was not considered to be an efficient Bill; and the united efforts of the two parties in the House, even if they have not realised all that we expected, have at least produced a piece of legislation which is clear in its object, and definite in the results it wishes to attain. But if you come to the question of finance, I defy any Member to go back to his constituents and tell them clearly what is the condition of our finances—whether we have a surplus, or whether we have not a surplus; whether the sources of our revenue are permanent, or whether they are fleeting; whether they are provisional, and, if provisional, whether they are provided for a time so brief that, before another year shall have elapsed, the principal features of our financial system may be changed. On this topic, then—the revenue of the country, which depends upon the taxation of the subject—we are not in a position at the present moment to speak with that satisfactory certainty which our constituents have a right to expect from us. Sir, it is with this view of the case that I have thought it my duty to endeavour to induce the House of Commons to consider the 'present state of the finances of the country—to enter into a discussion limited to that interesting and important topic, admitting no extraneous matter; and indeed the subject is one which requires no extraneous matter to command the attention of the House. It is a discussion which I hope may be conducted in a calm, impartial, and unimpassioned spirit. I at least on my part have no meaning in the observations which I shall with all deference place before the House, other than that which I have attempted to express in the Resolutions which I have laid on the table. I shall certainly set no example of introducing into this discussion any other considerations than those which are essentially financial; and I am persuaded, if the debate be conducted in that spirit, that, whatever may be the conclusion we arrive at, the debate will be one which will not discredit the House, but tend to satisfy the public. It is scarcely necessary for me to recall to the memory of the House the financial statement of the Minister made early this Session. The House was congratulated on the advantage of having a financial statement made early in February, but which by the bye, can scarcely be said to be completed at the end of June. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that a surplus of about 2,000,000l. sterling was at his disposition; and he stated to the House several remissions of taxation, which, assisted by that surplus, irrespective of maintaining a fund for the reduction of the public debt, he contemplated to accomplish. That surplus, I need not remind the House, was founded on the assumption that the House of Commons would renew the expiring tax upon income. Upon the assumption that that renewal would take place, and for no inconsiderable time, not merely for a term of three years, but until certain results were obtained, which the most sanguine cannot suppose are of easy or immediate accomplishment—upon the assumption of that law being thus renewed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in possession of this surplus. Now, I would beg the attention of the House—for the consideration is important—to the character of the tax the renewal of which was the basis of the financial statement of the Minister. Considerable controversy has often taken place as to the intentions of the eminent Minister who first reintroduced the tax upon property and income into our modern financial system—considerable controversy as to the real intentions of Sir Robert Peel—whether in fact it was his intention originally that the tax upon income should be a temporary tax, or whether that was only a parliamentary pretence under which he wished to introduce a permanent feature of our financial system. Now, I wish to state my belief, and to adduce the reason for that belief, that the object of Sir Robert Peel in the introduction of the tax upon income was a temporary object, and I form that opinion upon this sole, but to me perfectly satisfactory ground, that I cannot believe that a financier so able and so experienced, if he had contemplated that his law should be a permanent law, would have framed it upon a principle which I hope I may induce the House to believe is one much to be deprecated. I am not about to entrap the House into a barren discussion as to the comparative merits of direct and indirect taxation. In these days we are too apt perhaps to indulge in such discussions. I feel persuaded myself that if you have to raise in a country like England a revenue of the amount which we at present do raise, it would be quite impossible to obtain such results by adhering strictly to any particular mode of taxation. I feel convinced that the greater the number, the more various the means of supply, the greater will be the facility of raising the revenue; and, far from laying down any pedantic rule to be adhered to as to one mode of raising taxes in preference to another, all that I would uphold as the golden rule of all Chancellors of the Exchequer is, to beware that no tax, whatever form it may take, whether that of a customs duty, an excise duty, or a direct impost, should in its nature be excessive. But although I will not enter into a discussion as to the comparative merits of direct or indirect taxation, of this I feel persuaded, and I can hardly doubt that a majority of this House will sanction the proposition, that if direct taxation is to form a considerable part, or even a more considerable part, of our financial system, it is of the utmost importance that the principle of that direct taxation should be a right one. Now, I cannot for a moment concede that the principle of direct taxation should be other than the principle of indirect taxation. I am of opinion, as I think the highest authorities are of opinion, that direct taxation should be as general, not to say as universal, as indirect taxation. And, believing that that must have been the opinion of Sir Robert Peel, the very fact that he established his tax upon income on so narrow a basis, that he established exemptions on so considerable a scale, convinces me that in his use of that impost he had no other than a temporary object—that he had no other object than that which he expressed in this House, and that in its original proposition, and in the renewal, for which, at its original proposition, he prepared the House and the country, he was perfectly justified in adopting it with that temporary object in view. I hardly know whether it is necessary, or whether on this occasion I am justified in even touching upon the consequences of adopting any other principle in the application of direct taxation. In fact, if you maintain that the essence of direct taxation is, that it should be limited to a class, that it should be founded upon large exemptions, your impost is not so much a direct tax as a forced contribution. It is a tax upon capital. It is a constant invasion of the fund which is employing labour, and if carried to any excess, or continued for any length of time, its inevitable consequences must be the impoverishment and misery of the community. I look, then, upon the policy which was pursued by Sir Robert Peel with respect to the income tax, when he introduced it, and when, in accordance with the first speech he made on the subject, he three years after continued it, to have been perfectly justifiable, because his object being a temporary object, he had then only to consider the mode of attaining his temporary purpose in a manner the most easy and the most feasible. But the present Ministry, in making a tax upon income the basis of their finance, were not actuated by the same motives as Sir Robert Peel, and did not contemplate the same use of the instrument which they introduce to our notice. With a candour which I cannot too much praise, and which I fully acknowledge, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he asked for a continuance of the income tax for three years, never for a moment intimated that his view of that tax was, that it was a temporary one. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the renewal of the tax for three years for the fourth time, I still doubt whether he would have been justified in framing a large direct impost, which had continued for a term much longer than was contemplated by its originator, and which was again to be continued for a considerable, though a definite, term—I doubt whether he would have been justified, even under these circumstances, in framing his tax upon income on the limit- ed basis on which he did frame it. But when the Minister of Finance asks us to renew the tax upon income for the fourth time for another three years, and, with a frankness which I have acknowledged, informs us at the same time that he cannot contemplate the term when we shall be able to carry on our financial arrangements without the aid of such an impost, then I contend that that was the period when the Minister should have established the just principle upon which such an amount of direct taxation could alone justifiably be applied to the property and the industry of this country. I may be told, as I have been told since that day, that there was no acknowledgment on the part of the Government that the income tax was to be a perpetual tax. But I speak in the memory of Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I am sure they will justify my statement, when I recall to their recollection the catalogue of fiscal achievements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged in, which he enumerated to an amazed audience, and the completion of which alone was indicated as the term when this country could be free from this impost. Sir, I have great confidence in the vitality of the existing Government. The dangers which they have successfully encountered, the catastrophes which they have evaded, and the crises which they have baffled—all indicate the possession, if not of immortal, yet of very enduring qualities. And I can assure the noble Lord and his Colleagues, though it is my duty to sit on this side of the table, that I fully recognise their personal claims to the post which they occupy. But, sanguine as may be their own views as to the term of their Administration, I do not think that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have contemplated—prolonged as may be his tenure of office—that it would ever be his fortune to achieve all those objects, the accomplishment of which he has laid down and announced to the country as the condition of terminating the tax on property and income as it is now-framed. Well, Sir, I think I may then fairly conclude that the tax, as now framed, is a permanent feature in the financial scheme of Her Majesty's Ministers. Now I beg the House to observe, that in anything I have said I am making no objection to a tax on property and income. What I am directing the attention of the House to is this—and I think it of the utmost importance—that if direct taxation is to form a more considerable portion of our financial system for the future than it has heretofore done, that direct taxation should be founded on the true principle, and not upon the false one; upon the principle which, in the long run, will be advantageous to the community, and not upon one which, if it prevail, will in my opinion, be most pernicious; that the principle which we apply to direct taxation shall virtually be the same as that which we apply to indirect, and that in its application we should attempt to make it general, not to say universal. That is the only point that I am now enforcing upon the attention, and, I hope, the conviction, of the House. It will be observed, then, as far as the financial statement of the Minister this year is concerned, as far as we have as yet submitted it to our analysis, that it was founded upon a false basis; that it assumed that the income tax, as at present framed, should be permanent; and upon the assumption of its permanence, or, at any rate, its prolonged continuance, the surplus estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer depended. I shall now consider the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward, and which were to be dealt with by the disposition of this assumed surplus—a surplus assumed upon the continuance of a tax false, dangerous, and pernicious in its principle, as every tax intending direct impost to a large amount, and the principle of which is not of general application, I maintain is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed three measures of considerable importance, and one or two of minor degree. The first in rank was, no doubt, a proposition for the repeal of the window tax. It is unnecessary for me to dwell upon this point. The objections to the window duty, as it then existed, were financial, and they were social, or, as is the fashion to style them, sanitary. If the financial oppression of the window tax was the great reason for its remission, it is to be regretted that the Minister should have attempted only partially to remit it. In that case, it would have been more advantageous, had it been possible, that the tax should be simply and completely remitted. The fashion has always subsisted, and the present Government have followed it in the division of a surplus, very often to fritter away its virtue by apportioning a part to various interests of the community. Now, in my opinion, as a general principle, it is much wiser, if you have a surplus, to do something that is efficient—to discover what interest is most suffering, what tax most oppressive, the remission of what duty would give the most elasticity to trade, or add most to the comfort and the happiness of the community, than to hold as a matter of course, that the commercial class, the agricultural class, the inhabitant of the town, and the shipbuilder, should each have his share; when it is very possible that of these four classes, three may require no aid; and when it is very possible also, that, by concentrating your resources upon one object of relief, you may afford substantial succour. But I will not dwell upon this point—nor upon the social reason which was urged in favour of a remission of the window duty, except to observe that as far as sanitary objects were concerned, I think they might have been attained without any loss of revenue. The reason that I do not dwell upon the point at all is, that I do not intend, as I stated on the 11th of April, when it was my duty to solicit the attention of the House to a discussion similar to the present—that I do not intend at all to dispute the policy of the repeal of the window tax. I accept that as a realised result. I think after all that has passed, considering the unpopularity of the tax—considering its injurious character—and considering all that has occurred in this House with respect to it, that nothing could be more inexpedient or more impolitic than to disturb that remission; and as far as the revenue derived from the tax upon windows is concerned, I consider it blotted out from the Exchequer. I will therefore at once proceed to the proposition embodied in the Bill before us—namely, a duty upon houses. Now, I ask the House to apply that sound principle of finance which, in my opinion, ought to be one of our cardinal principles of finance—namely, that direct taxation should be as general as indirect taxation, to the measure which is now before the consideration of the House. I ask them to apply that searching principle to the Bill which has been introduced by the Government for imposing a tax upon houses. Sir, that fatal characteristic of the income tax, which was perfectly justifiable when introduced for a temporary purpose by Sir Robert Peel, but infinitely to be deprecated when established for a permanent purpose by the present Government—namely, direct taxation, established on a very limited basis, and partaking in no way of a general character, appears in an aggravated form in the house duty. The Government had a surplus at their command with which they might have completely and efficiently dealt, had it been necessary, with the window tax. They had a surplus which would have allowed them to remit the window tax, if they considered the remission of that tax to be a paramount necessity. But, practically, they do not remit the window tax. They propose rather a commutation—not a remission, and their scheme has this fatal fault, that the commutation is only a partial commutation. Complete remission, or complete commutation—these are the two principles which a financial Minister should pursue. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer not having, I will not say the moral courage, but the financial courage, completely to remit the tax on windows, which he ought to have done, if he felt the necessity of doing it, takes one of the most inestimable weapons in the armoury of a financial Minister, and uses it for the most meagre and the meanest purpose. A house duty is a duty as just in principle as can well be conceived, and one which every person who reflects upon the present position of our financial resources must have always looked to as a most valuable aid. But what does the Minister accomplish by this valuable instrument? He does not even effect a complete remission of the window duties. He gives you imperfect remission and imperfect commutation, and he wastes those great resources which are offered him by a house tax for a most limited, and, comparatively speaking, worthless result. And in doing this he not only does not obtain a complete compensation for the revenue remitted, but he violates that important principle which at no period more than the present ought to be cherished by the House of Commons—the right principle upon which direct taxation should be applied. There were other measures brought forward by the Minister on that occasion. A diminution was proposed of the tax upon timber, which we have recently been discussing in Committee, and also of the duty upon coffee. With the permission of the House I will address myself briefly to these subjects. I am not one of those who think that there is any abstract excellence in a Customs duty—I am not one of those who think that, as a rigid rule, or even as a general rule, you should remit an Excise duty in preference to a Customs duty. All that I would do when the remission of taxation was concerned, would be, to ascertain which duty is most oppressive to the people, and most injurious to their comfort and their industry; and whether I found that to be a Customs duty or an Excise duty, that is the impost upon which I would lay my finger. Therefore I do not object to these propositions of remission on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they are Customs duties. Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could prove to me that the remission of these Customs duties would more benefit the subject—would give a greater impulse to trade—would more tend to the advantage of the community than the remission of an Excise duty, or any direct tax, I should prefer remitting the Customs duties; but my great objection to the remission at present of these two duties—though I shall not now dwell upon this head—is that I do not think we are justified by the state of our revenue to remit any tax, whatever form it may take, and whether it be a Customs duty or an Excise duty; because I apprehend that our ability to do that depends upon the fact of the existence of a real surplus or not. But I must notice the plea upon which the remission of the timber duty has been urged by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says we owe the remission of the timber duty mainly and principally to the builders of ships in this country. Well, I think that no one will dispute the hardships to which the British shipbuilder is now subjected; but a partial remission of the duty on timber does not at all compensate the builder of ships in this country for the competition to which you now expose him. You are giving up revenue in this case without obtaining the result which you wish to achieve. Now if you were to allow the builder of ships in these isles to build in bond, as has before been proposed; if you permitted him to use freely all the articles that are necessary to the construction of a ship in England, and pay no duty upon them, then you would put him in fair competition with the foreigner who brings a ship duty-free to this country, whilst the British builder is building his ship subject to a variety of duties. That is an arrangement which you ought to have made when you repealed the navigation laws. When you did that, you ought to have permitted the British shipbuilder to build in bond; then he would have been placed in a position which I deny that the proposal of the Minister, as far as the British ship- builder is concerned, will tend to place him. There were other propositions in this Budget. There were propositions which were intended for the relief of the distressed agricultural interest, and I shall not dwell upon them. They are already familiar to the House. Whatever was their value it is unnecessary for me to calculate, because no sooner were they offered than they were withdrawn. But perhaps the House will permit me to make one observation on the position of the agricultural interest with reference to the remission of taxation. I ventured to say just now that in the remission of a tax, whatever form it might assume, all that I recognised as the valid reason for its repeal or remission was, that it should be the one which the Minister of Finance thought, on the whole, to be the most injurious to the community. That, I think, ought to be the first principle which should guide him in the selection of taxes for remission. Sir, I think there is another rule which ought also to influence a Minister of Finance, who is in the happy possession of a surplus. I think, if there be a particular interest in the country which is subject to great difficulty, is experiencing great distress, and incurring a long and continued depression, that it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the state of that interest, and to see whether the remission of any tax would tend to relieve it. Now the House will recollect that at the commencement of the year we were informed, by the Speech from the Throne, that a very important interest was in a state of great depression, and of continued depression. The House will recollect that shortly after, the Minister proposed measures, the tendency of which was announced by him to relieve that distressed interest; and without requesting the House to give an opinion now upon a question, to which I refer only in illustration of the financial course taken by the Government this year, and not with any view to obtain an opinion upon the subject from either side of the House, I ask the House to consider the position of the agricultural interest now with reference to the question of remission of taxation. By certain laws—the policy or impolicy of which forms no part of our discussion to-night—we have agreed to place the cultivators of the soil of this country in complete competition with the cultivators of the soils of all other countries. Now, is it not obvi- ous that it one of the first duties of the Government in remitting taxation, to ascertain whether they cannot diminish the cost of production to the British farmer so situated? I ask the House to concede no more. That was the first duty of a financial Minister, who had counselled his Sovereign to announce from the Throne that there was only one interest in the country, and that a most important one, in a state of continued distress. I am not now asking the House to decide whether it was in the power of the Minister or not to do this; hut I say it was the duty of the Minister to consider whether, in the remission of taxation he was enabled to propose, it was in his power to reduce the cost of production to the cultivator of the British soil. It was the opinion of myself and of my friends who supported me that it was in the power of the Government thus to diminish the cost of production; it was our belief that there was a pressure of taxation upon the cultivator of the soil, which was not shared by the community, and though there might be a difference of opinion as to the degree of that pressure, no Gentleman in the House will deny the fact that the cultivator of the soil belongs to a class in this country which pays taxes to which the community at large is not subject. Following the second rule which I think should guide the Minister of Finance in the appropriation of a surplus—the first being that he should remit the tax most oppressive to the community; and the second, that he should remit that tax which presses most upon any suffering class—I called upon the Ministry to consider whether it was not in their power to accomplish that result. In doing so, as I do to-night, I interfered in no manner with that complete remission of the window duty, which I consider to be a realised result, and one which no Government can disturb. I merely urged that the cost of production should be diminished to the cultivator of the soil, and believing that by a wise appropriation of our resources that diminution of cost might be materially assisted, I suggested to the Government several propositions which in a less or greater degree would, in my opinion, have effected that object. In doing so I pursued, with the concurrence of my friends, the course I had previously adopted; but I confess I had other objects in so doing than merely supporting measures which tended to diminish the cost of production to the British farmer. I know that in matters of finance it is not merely pounds, shillings, and pence that are always to be calculated, but that the feelings of the people, or of a great class of the community, must he considered in the remission of taxation; and I was profoundly convinced that at that time, as now, a demonstration on the part of this House of sympathy with the cultivator of the soil—an expression of a desire to assist him in his terrible struggle—a resolution by a vote of this House to aid him in his effort to lessen the expense of cultivation, was a course the most politic, and tending, whether a large or small measure were adopted—tending to allay asperities, to soften animosities, and terminate that conflict between the rival industries of the country which are so much to be deprecated, and which in my belief have already endangered the institutions of the country. Influenced by these views, a Minister might have taken the surplus announced at the beginning of the Session, and, dealing with that portion of the poor-law funds which is not subject to the control of local administration, he might have brought forward an extensive measure of relief, which might have contributed to aid the finances of the farmer, and would have at the same time assured him that this House, sympathising with his sufferings, were anxious to adapt his position to the altered circumstances in which their legislation had placed him. That course was not pursued by the Government. I deeply regretted it. I felt it to be my duty to invite their attention to what I considered their duty; but, though I was supported by nearly a moiety of the House, I was unsuccessful. And now I have brought the financial career of the Government down to the commencement of the month of April. And here, perhaps, I may be permitted to make one observation with respect to the Motions I have occasionally made, with the object of assisting the British farmer to meet his severe trial. That object I had always acknowledged to be twofold—namely, not only to obtain for him some relief from the pressure of taxation, but also to show to him that there was in this House a salutary sympathy with his distressed position. The hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey) has lately made some comments upon my parliamentary career, which would have been less inconvenient, and certainly not less ingenuous, if they had been made here, and in my presence. The hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the Motions which I have brought forward were futile Motions; and, secondly, that in bringing them forward, the Mover of them was insincere. These are very harsh opinions. It is possible that the Motions which I have brought forward with the twofold object I have mentioned, may have been futile; but at any rate Motions that have been supported by a large party in the House of Commons, have upon their surface primâ facie symptoms of not being considered altogether inefficient. It is possible that a Member who brings forward a Motion may be insincere, but it is difficult to penetrate the bosom of any man. We should rather give him credit for motives more natural, more obvious, and more charitable. I may have been mistaken, and not insincere; my reason may have been misled, vanity may have misguided me; I may have been a foolish man or a vain man; it is better to think that, than that I should he an insincere man. At any rate my motives under the circumstances, may remain a question of controversy. But what are we to say of a Member of Parliament who, when Motions are brought forward which he believes to be futile, by a Gentleman who he is convinced is insincere, omits no opportunity of following him into the same lobby, and supporting him by his suffrage? Why, I might turn round on the hon. Member for Berkshire, and there is scarcely an epithet of vituperation—scarcely a phrase of invective, that, under such circumstances, I should not be justified in lavishing upon him. But time has taught me, as it has taught most of us, not to judge too harshly of human nature; we all know that men are actuated, not only by mixed motives, but often by confused ones, and that it is very possible for a man to have considerable abilities, to have received a careful culture, to possess many reputable and some amiable qualities, and yet to be gifted with such an uncouth, and blundering organisation, that he is perpetually doing that which he does not intend, and saying and writing that which he does not mean. And that is the charitable view which I take of the hon. Member for Berkshire. But, Sir, about this time a considerable event occurred. I have analysed the measures brought forward by the Government under their various heads, measures founded upon an assumed surplus produced by a large measure of direct taxation, of which the principle was unjust and pernicious. I have shown you how the window duty was repealed, and nobody wishes to disturb that repeal. I have noticed the two measures to reduce the import duties. I have reminded you of the measures that were brought forward to relieve the distressed agriculturists. I have reminded you that when Ministers, after an agitated epoch to which I wish only to allude, reconstructed their Budget, and discarded, in a manner not remarkable for courtesy or kindness, the claims of the agricultural body, I called upon the House to declare their opinion upon that subject, that, though I was supported by nearly a moiety of its Members, I was not successful in obtaining the object we proposed to ourselves. And here, Sir, I, for one, was prepared to make no further objection to the Budget of the Minister. I was satisfied with fulfilling what I considered a public duty, and from that moment I was resolved, as far as I was concerned, that the measures which the Minister brought forward, and of which I had questioned and challenged the propriety, should not receive any further opposition. But what disturbed the serenity of the financial firmament? Nothing from this side of the House. An hon. Gentleman opposite—a great ornament of this House, one of its most valuable Members, the father of the House—for I believe he is looked upon by most of us in a paternal light—a Gentleman whom I may fairly describe as being the most constant and consistent supporter of the Whig Government—who, though he sometimes chides them, chides them in a kindly spirit, and though he sometimes castigates them, castigates them with affectionate remorse—a Gentleman, who, if you take a comprehensive view of his career, has always stepped forward at the right moment to extricate a not sufficiently grateful Government from the impending catastrophe—this most distinguished supporter of the Whig party (Mr. Hume) brought forward a Motion to limit the income tax, which was to have been continued for a renewed term of three years, to one year only; and intimated, in a manner which has necessarily bound the House, that his object in so doing was to submit that tax to a Parliamentary investigation of the most searching character, with the view of terminating those inequalities, those frauds, and those vexations, which have been believed by every one to be irremediable. What happened? That Motion was carried. The basis upon which the surplus of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was raised fell from under the superstructure; the fairy palace vanished in a night. That was no ordinary loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that was not merely a loss of the income tax for three years, though that was a result which a Finance Minister must deeply deplore, but it was, regarding the schemes of the right hon. Gentleman, a loss of a permanent income tax. It was not merely a three years' tenure of the tax; but it was the permanent future of the Financial Minister that was taken from him—it was the foundation on which was raised, not merely the present superstructure, but on which, year after year, he was to build up all those elevations which were to have formed the great features of our renovated and reconstructed financial system. It is impossible to over-rate the importance of that Vote—impossible to deny that from the moment that it passed the financial position of this country became uncertain and precarious. I do not blame the noble Lord and his Colleagues for accepting that Vote, with its consequences. From this side no taunt arose which intimated to the noble Lord that he ought to have resigned the power which was not strong enough to enforce his policy. I think the noble Lord and his Colleagues acted in a manly and honourable manner in not resigning office. Nay, more, that they acted in a dutiful and loyal manner in the peculiar circumstances in which the earlier events of the Session had placed them with respect to the tenure of office. In retaining their posts, they fulfilled that duty, and not in an ungraceful manner. But whilst I am willing to make that concession to Her Majesty's Ministers, I cannot agree that their conduct was equally to be commended in retaining not only their places, but the financial measures which they had brought forward with prospects so different from those in which they now found themselves. My opinion is that Ministers, feeling they were not justified in retiring, should at the same time have announced to their eminent supporter who proposed that Motion, that he and his Friends must take its consequences in the withdrawal of the financial propositions which had been founded on the assumed continuance of the tax, and which were to be furnished by the surplus which had now only an imaginary existence. I do not think I am taking an extravagant or irrational view of the duty of the Government under such circumstances. And it appeared to me, as far as I can observe the human nature on the other side of the table, that the noble Lord was animated at the time by feelings of a not very contrary character. There was a species of delay in the advancement of the financial measures of the Government; they never appeared in the paper; or, if they did, they were never noticed; not a single stage did they make of progress; and it was generally understood—I do not speak of rumours out of doors, or of those confidential communications which are made in doors—but it was generally understood—perhaps it was a public conviction arising from natural views of the situation of Ministers, and of their duty to the country—but there was a general impression that the financial measures of the Government were withdrawn. How many Cabinet Councils were held, I would not venture to state; but this I know, a remarkable scene occurred in this House. One of the most distinguished metropolitan Members, who seemed to share in this conviction, rose in his place and demanded some information from the noble Lord as to the intentions of the Government. He wanted to know whether the window tax was really to be repealed or not; and the answer of the noble Lord was extremely unsatisfactory. The inquiry was again repeated another night, and in a tone of menace; and the noble Lord, turning his back upon us, made a confidential communication which appeared to be of a deprecatory character. The long and the short of it is, the noble Lord was hustled by a Finsbury mob—in Saffron-hill, or some place of that character; and the pocket of the Prime Minister was relieved of the public surplus. After a fortnight's friendly interpellations, the noble Lord at last screwed up his courage to proceed with his measures of remission, which were to be furnished from a moonshine surplus—founded on an imaginary impost. I am now arrived at that point at which I would ask the House what is the most prudent course that, under these circumstances, we should pursue? The fund from which the surplus that was to be distributed was derived, virtually no longer exists. I would ask the House calmly and dispassionately to consider this point. What is the prospect or probability of the income tax being renewed at the next meeting of Parliament? It is an awkward and a disagreeable question. But it is a question which I must beg this House calmly to consider to-night. I am a mem- ber of the Committee which is to inquire into the income tax. I am a member of it in deference to the feelings of the House, and against my own inclination. I would rather have seen a more efficient member on it than myself. Being a member, however, of the Committee, let it not be supposed that I am giving the opinion of that Committee in what I now state. We are sedulously pursuing our course of inquiry, but that has not led us as yet to consider the points to which I alluded. I speak just the same as if I was not a member of that Committee, or as if that Committee had not been appointed. There is one reason among many which I confess weighs much with me, and even convinces me that the tax upon income as at present framed will not be renewed by the House. I will mention it. I find a universal admission that as at present framed that tax is an unequal tax, leads to fraud—is rife with vexatious and inquisitorial proceedings—and that it is stamped by features repugnant to the habits and feelings of Englishmen. Everybody agrees in that. Tory, Whig, Liberal, Conservative, or Radical, all admit those to be the features of the income tax. But there is also another opinion rife. Every man of authority upon financial subjects, all those most competent to guide opinion in this respect, universally and without exception agree to another point, and that is, that those odious features of the tax cannot by any means be removed or modified. He must be shortsighted indeed who can hesitate as to the consequences of such an opinion upon human conduct—who can believe that a tax with such odious qualities which the highest authorities tell you are irremediable, can be invested with that enduring character which appears to be formed of it by that ready reckoner the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that, though a sufficient, is not the only reason that forces me to this conclusion. I see among the great lights of science—among those whose writings will ultimately guide public opinion on the subject, an opinion gaining ground every day that the principle of direct taxation cannot be different from the principle of indirect taxation—that they must both be equally general. Of course I speak only of permanent taxes, and not of those imposed merely to meet an emergency, like the income tax of Sir Robert Peel. I ask then the House to consider, assuming that when Parliament next meets it will not consent to grant the income tax as at present framed, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present remissions of taxation are carried, and there will be in consequence a deficiency of 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l. (I say nothing of the Kaffir war), what are the prospects for meeting that probable, or possible, deficiency? There are only two modes, and though they may act with blended influence, analyse those methods and they will resolve themselves into reduction of expenditure or increase of taxation. Not one word shall fall from me to depreciate the efforts of any hon. Gentleman to diminish taxation, though the results may be comparatively slight. A diminution of expenditure which amounts only to 100 or 200,000l, is not to be despised in a country which can never find money enough to build a national gallery. Nevertheless when we have to deal with a deficiency of millions, I must agree with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that no considerable reduction of expenditure can be effected in this country unless you touch our military armaments; and the House must therefore consider what probability or possibility there is of such a course. I will not now say one word against the theory of perpetual peace. I will only make one remark. As long as I find that the strongest positions are in the possession of the weakest Powers; that the richest territories in the world owe their allegiance to those least qualified to defend them; I see the elements of disturbance, which only the most sanguine can affect to despise, and though you may call the process, in the enlightened language of the present day "annexation," and not conquest, it is a process which I feel must begin with force, must be repelled by force, and must ultimately be settled by force. But to dismiss these general views. I ask the House to consider the general state of Europe at present, and say whether any Minister of this country can be asked with any face of reason now, or at the commencement of next year, to reduce our military armaments. What is the state of the Continent? You have one of the leading nations of the world, with a vast population, a most spirited and restless people, in the heart of Europe, who have acknowledged that they have no constitution—who, apparently, have not in their country any of the elements of government—who, whatever be their powers of self-control, no one will for a moment pretend are not at this moment in a position the most perilous that 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of men ever yet found themselves. Could even the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hume) tell them that there was less chance of a disturbance now than for some years back? Certainly if he makes a Motion to that effect, he will not be as successful as when he limited the income tax to one year. And you, whether he be right or wrong, looking to what is possible and probable, will not meet a deficiency of revenue by a diminution of military expenditure. Every man must feel that that is not the mode in which the deficiency will be met. Then it must be met by increased taxation, and in ten months' time we shall in all probability be called on to supply the financial deficiency by increased taxation. In such circumstances, then, could there be a more unwise; a more impolitic, a more foolish act, than now to be taking off 2,000,000l. of taxes, which no one pretends press with any great severity on the subject, of which the collection is effected with comparative facility, and which are more easily borne than any corresponding amount of taxation which might be granted in their stead? But I am bound to put another view of our position before the consideration of the House, if I may still presume to trespass on their attention. It is a view which, I think, deserves our gravest consideration. If you have a deficiency, and if you are called on—with the views which I have indicated as to direct taxation—to consider the principle on which our financial system should be established, is it not of the utmost importance that we should come to that consideration with plenty of time, in a tranquil mood, and not urged by matters of pressing public interest? But what prospect awaits the House when it meets next February? What part is the noble Lord prepared to take? The noble Lord is not satisfied with financial embarrassment—he is not satisfied with a possible deficiency of 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l.—he is not satisfied that we are to be called on to settle the principle on which the revenue should be raised to supply that deficiency, but chooses that tranquil and undisturbed hour to propose a new reform of the House of Commons. Shall I be told to-night that, like the surplus, the New Reform Bill is conditional? Hardly that. Her Majesty's Government are pledged—mind you, pledged—to introduce a very extensive measure of Parliamentary reform. To such a mea- sure they are pledged in the most formal manner. Need I recall to the memory of the House the language used by a Cabinet Minister as the organ of his Colleagues on the second reading of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for East Surrey, when a formal announcement was made by the Government in order that all similar discussions might be terminated for this Session? I am sure the hon. Member for Montrose and his friends cannot have forgotten that announcement of the Secretary at War; and I am quite as certain that the hon. Member and his friends mean to hold the Government to its engagement. The Motion of the hon. Member for East Surrey, though itself of a very extensive character, did not satisfy Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War met it by questioning the utility of so partial and limited a proposal. Ministers have deliberated well on this question, said the right hon. Gentleman; the Prime Minister has before this given you hints, but as you press me, I tell you our measure will be comprehensive, and not partial and limited like yours. Such was the language of the Secretary at War. Ministers are pledged to deal with the subject in all its ramifications—they are pledged to bring forward a complete and comprehensive measure, and to financial embarassment the noble Lord proposes to add political experiment, and all to be encountered in the first week of February next. Surely, Sir, with such a prospect, it would be just as well to keep hold of 1,800,000l. of revenue if we can without disappointing what I acknowledge to be the legitimate expectations of the community with respect to the remission of the window tax, which, so far from questioning, is a part of those measures I wish to recommend for the adoption of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, the Resolutions which I am about to place in your hands do not pledge the House to more than a salutary principle in our financial arrangements, which would effect those changes in our taxation that may be deemed advisable, with no material sacrifice of public income. I feel, however, that I ought not to shrink from more explicitly expressing the course which we wish to see, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Ministers pursue. We are willing in the first place to support them in a complete repeal of the tax upon windows. We do not wish in any way to interfere with that arrangement—an arrangement, the policy of which I am not here at pre- sent to challenge. But, Sir, with regard to the measure before us, which is virtually a measure of partial compensation for the loss of revenue thus incurred, we wish to see Government transform it into one of complete compensation; so that the house duty should be so extended, that it should raise a sum equal to that remitted by the repeal of the window tax. Thus, while the revenue would not suffer by the repeal of an odious tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not introduce into our financial system an inestimable instrument like the house duty, to waste its resources for a comparatively trifling purpose. With regard to the modification of the duties on timber and coffee, I must again repeat in a manner the most decided, that in expressing a hope that Ministers will not persist with these measures, I am offering no objection to them on the plea that they are customs duties. I discard all those principles of finance which would hold out customs duties as the only duties which ought to be encouraged. I feel that the revenue of a country like ours must be raised from various means spread over a large surface; and it is only because I believe there is no surplus to supply the vacancy which will be caused by those remissions, that I hope Ministers, under the circumstances, will not persist with what I consider impolitic propositions. At the same time we are prepared to support a measure which shall permit the British shipowner to build his ships in bond with materials free of duty, and thus place him in fair competition with the foreigner who brings his ships ready made into this country. In saying this, I beg to state that the loss to the revenue, under these circumstances, will not be, in my opinion, of any considerable amount. I have taken some pains to inform myself on this point, and have availed myself of the information of men most qualified to judge. I think we assumed that the loss by the remission of the duty on timber would he about 284,000l.; and I think I can guarantee to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the odd 84,000l., will be more than he will lose by permitting British shipowners to build their ships in bond. It would be not so much a remission of taxation, as an act of political justice. These are the measures which we are anxious to see Ministers undertake, assured of our support if they pursue that course which, according to my observation and belief, their better judgment once impelled them to follow. I see a smile on the face of the President of the Board of Trade when I talk of giving Government our support in carrying these measures, as much as to say that, though we would support them in these measures, we would hold back in our support if they were threatened in consequence with a vote of censure from hon. Gentlemen behind. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman he is mistaken. When I say we should support the Government, it is not merely in carrying these measures, but also against the menacing consequences he anticipates, and without taking advantage of any discontent of any section of his followers. We would support them because we believed their measures necessary to the welfare of the country. After all, what is at stake? It is the public credit. That is the question; it is not to be tolerated that a Ministry, acting under a feeling of false shame, or from a false point of honour, should encourage measures, the tendency of which is to injure the public credit. I beg to press upon the House this important consideration. We are so used to the blessings of public credit—we live in an atmosphere and in a world so completely under its influence, that we are not apt to reflect what may be the consequences of any injury done to it. I met lately a remark by one of the most able publicists of modern times, who has recently visited this country, which, although I am not prepared to admit its correctness, is deserving of the attention of the House. The writer says, that things are changed in England as they are everywhere else, and that property is not as secure as it was in this country, nor public credit as sacred. It can easily be understood that a foreigner may be misled by superficial symptoms, but the observation I have quoted was never before made on England by a man of so much authority. It well becomes us to consider what public credit is, and how much it is dependent on the conduct of this House. We well know that the resources of England, however considerable, are inferior to those of many countries which, nevertheless, have not attained the position we occupy. How often were we told by the Members of the League, in the days of our old struggle, that there was scarcely a raw material introduced into our ingenious and useful manufactures which was not an exotic, imported from foreign climes. The most celebrated diamond in the world is certainly at this moment resplendent in our immediate neigh- bourhood—within the teeming walls of that enchanted pile which the sagacious taste and the prescient philanthropy of an accomplished and enlightened Prince have raised for the glory of England, and the delight and instruction of two hemispheres—but every one knows the precious stone was not found within the dominions of the illustrious consort of His Royal Highness—our Sovereign Lady the Queen. And it may be truly said, that all the members of the Geological Society, with all their hammers, might knock, and split, and crush the quartz hills of England for ever without producing a single ingot of that metal, a sacred thirst for which seems ineradicable in the heart of man. I observed the other day in one of those organs which in the present age exercise so great an influence over opinion, a statistical catalogue, which appeared sufficiently accurate, of the revenues of the principal dominions of the world. It contained nothing new, perhaps, to any Gentleman in this House, but the aggregate of the information was very striking. I observed, for example, that colossal Russia, whose gigantic destinies, looming in the future, appal, as it were, the coming generations of man, and its enormous armies and vast administrative body were sustained by a public income not so great as that which is raised by the English exciseman. Austria—the ancient empire of the Csesars—with its treasury enriched by the triple revenues of three great kingdoms, Bohemia, Hungary, and Lombardy, does not command annual resources equal to those produced by those very "stamps and taxes" which occasion us so much criticism, and so much perplexity to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While Prussia, whose vast and disciplined array only a year ago alarmed every capital in Europe, absolutely does not raise a revenue so large as is produced by that obscure, provincial, and local taxation, whoso peculiarities it is my lot so often to bring before the consideration of a too indulgent House of Commons. Nor could I forget that India, with its myriads of population and crowds of kings, with its "mountains of light" and pillared palanquins of precious metal showered like tribute at the feet of our Queen, with all the science and security of British administration, cannot produce from its broad and exuberant bosom a sum equal to that afforded by the curtailed custom-houses of England. What is the magic spell—what the cause of all this?—that this island should produce a revenue greater than all these vast dominions? It is, that in this country we have associated our material interests with the inspiration of a great moral principle, and that we have built up public wealth on the foundation of public credit. That is the choicest production of the British isles—more precious than all the harvests of tropic climes—than all the gems of Golconda, or the auriferous deposits of the sierras of the Pacific. Of that treasure the Parliament of England was the creator, as it is the champion and the guardian. I cannot doubt the House of Commons will be faithful to its office and fulfil its duty; and it is with this conviction I recommend to the consideration of the Ministers of the Queen and the representatives of the people the Resolutions I now move.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'according to an Estimate of the probable future produce of the existing Taxes, submitted to this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears that a surplus Revenue may be expected in the present year to the extent of about 2,000,000l.
"That in the Revenue so estimated is included a sum exceeding 5,000,000l. derived from the Tax on Income, respecting which an inquiry has been directed to be made by a Committee of this House, on the result of whose labours may depend the future renewal or modification of that important impost.
"That in this provisional state of the financial arrangements of the Country, it appears to this House to he most consistent with a due regard to the maintenance of public credit, and the exigencies of the public service, not to make any material sacrifice of public income in effecting such changes as may be doomed advisable in other branches of Taxation'—instead thereof."

said: Not long ago the hon. Member who has just sat down paid a compliment to my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) and myself, which we did not at all feel ourselves entitled to, when he said he admired our speeches; but added that we depended on them, and not upon our measures. I really think I am justified in retorting that observation on the hon. Member himself in the present instance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I feel the very highest admiration for the orations which he (Mr. Disraeli) is in the habit of addressing to this House; but, unfortunately, this is the third time this Session that the hon. Gentleman has spoken on this subject of taxation and finance, and that, at the conclusion of an able speech, he has left us as before in the most complete ignorance of what his views and intentions are. I have listened with attention to the talented address of the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, which has occupied nearly two hours of our time, and I confess that the only practical point I could discover throughout was a suggestion that we should allow ships to be built in bond. There is one great disadvantage under which the hon. Gentleman labours, that his speech says one thing, and that his Motion says another. Not only does his Motion fall short of his speech, but it is absolutely contradictory of his speech, The Motion of the hon. Gentleman says, "Repeal no taxes." The speech of the hon. Gentleman says, "Repeal the window duties." The repeal of these duties the hon. Gentleman's speech deals with as a result realised; and the suggestion is, though not very boldly uttered, that we should throw away the whole of our surplus in the total repeal of those duties. The hon. Gentleman has moralised upon the value of public credit; and the way in which he would support public credit, would he by throwing away at once the whole of our surplus. I must pay the hon. Gentleman a willing tribute for the lively imagination he has shown throughout his speech. He has spoken eloquently of the "gigantic destinies of Russia," and of the "empire of the Cæsars, with its triple crown," although it did seem to me that he spoiled the eloquence of his sentence by a little bathos at the end about stamps, and taxes, and excise. He has spoken of "mountains of light," and "pillowed palanquins" in the most magnificent phraseology. There is no doubt that those poetic fancies are very pleasing, and that his concluding sentences were very grand and very amusing; hut they had nothing at all, that I know of, to do with the subject before us. The hon. Gentleman has made a most eloquent speech; he has answered the' hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Pusey); but he did not say a single word in support of his proposition that no tax should be repealed. And, indeed, were it not that some of the hon. Gentleman's flights of imagination refer to matters which have been practically before us this Session, I might fairly dismiss the speech, and call upon the House to go to a division, and negative the hon. Gentleman's Resolutions. But the hon. Gentleman has really been pleased to take some liberties with matters of fact; and on these I must for a few moments beseech the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not understand, and further that no man in the House can understand, what is the exact financial position of the country at this moment. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman understanding in this respect. I find, however, on referring to the financial statement which it was my duty to make to the House on the 4th of April last, that what I then described remains unchanged up to this moment. I have no reason now to think that my calculation of a probable surplus of 1,900,000l. will be altered. The remission of taxation as regards the window duties will still be what I then said it would be. The loss to the revenue on timber and coffee, will, I apprehend, be precisely what I stated three months ago, The surplus of this year, after those reductions, will be about 900,000l., from which will have to be deducted the cost of the Kaffir war. Nothing whatever has occurred to disturb the calculations which I made in April. The hon. Gentleman says that the surplus of this year entirely depends on the permanence of the income tax. I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that it depends on no such thing. What may happen next year is another thing; but, as far as this year is concerned, the surplus is not affected, if the income tax is not continued beyond the year. The hon. Gentleman also says that all my calculations are built on what I advocate—the permanence of the income tax. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman's memory is uncommonly short. I have never yet advocated, in any speech I have ever addressed to this House, the permanence of the income tax. So much is that not the case, that, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), I said that I proposed a renewal of the income tax as it had been proposed before, for the purpose of making way for certain changes in the financial measures of the country, which I thought much more necessary than the repeal of the income tax. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has further said that I made the observation that I did not see the period when the income tax could be expected to end. Again, I admire the imagination of the hon. Gentleman. But I must beg of him not to put words into my mouth which I never used. What I did say was, that I proposed this year to deal with those taxes which I thought it indispensable to deal with; and that, in another year, it would remain with the House to decide upon the advisability, the necessity being no longer a question, of making other changes in lieu of a repeal or reduction of the income tax. The hon. Gentleman says that we acted right in maintaining our places, promising us, in a kindly spirit, a support which I have no reason to call upon him to give, but that he wonders why we retained those financial measures which, as he represents, every one supposed to have been withdrawn. If my recollection servos me, I think it was very shortly after the success, as I deem it the unfortunate success, of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, in respect to the income tax, that my noble Friend, or myself, I forget which, stated to the House that in regard to the financial measures of the year, we were not inclined to make any alteration whatever; that we meant to go forward with all the measures which it was necessary to carry in order to bring our financial scheme into immediate effect; and though, in order to carry forward another great measure upon which the feeling of the country was much excited, it would be necessary to postpone them for a little, the fact of their being postponed till the month of May, June, or July, would present no practical difficulty whatever in the financial arrangements of the year. Thus much I have thought it necessary to say, in order to remove the impression which the lively imagination of the hon. Gentleman may have produced upon the House as to matters of fact. I will now dismiss the speech of the hon. Gentleman, which not only contained nothing in support of his Motion, but which, as I have shown, was in some respects directly opposed to it. The Motion is to the effect that no material sacrifice of the public income ought to be made this year. That is to say, if there be any meaning in words, this means that that reduction of duty which was assented to by the House a second time ought not to be made; that that which the hon. Gentleman considers as the slightest relief which could be proposed, should be given up; and that other relief, on which, as he said on a former occasion, the country had set its heart, should be abandoned; that the window tax ought not to be repealed, and that a modified house tax ought not to be substituted in its place. The hon. Gentleman, on a former occasion, on going into Committee on this tax, moved an Amendment, and made a long speech. From the long speech there was no conclusion to be drawn except this—that he objected to the repeal of the window duties. He certainly said then, as he says now, that he is excessively sorry to interfere with the repeal of the window duties, and that he is steadily resolved not to oppose this great remission of taxation. Nevertheless, we see the practical tendency of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments. The hon. Gentleman said that enough was not done for the agricultural interest in the repeal of these duties; and I then endeavoured, I thought successfully, to convince the country Gentlemen, that however great might be the relief proposed to be given in this way to the towns, the benefit to be conferred on the agricultural districts would be even greater in proportion. The hon. Gentleman's argument now is that the public credit was in danger. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to have thought of that risk before he went into the same lobby on a recent occasion with my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. I cannot suppose that the hon. Gentleman, whose acute intellect is remarkable in this House, did not foresee that the result of the triumph of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose would be the serious endangering of the public credit. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) now—and I am most grateful to him for his anxiety—insists upon preserving the integrity of the public credit and of the revenue. The hon. Gentleman has referred to numerous financial and fiscal considerations. But has this always been the opinion of the hon. Gentleman since the success of my hon. Friend? I am certainly glad to find the hon. Gentleman so determined to preserve under all circumstances the public credit. But the other day there was a Motion made in this House which endangered no less an amount of revenue than 5,000,000l. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was carried on the 2nd May. On the 8th May the hon. Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) moved the repeal of the malt tax. The finances of the country were put in jeopardy, the public credit of the nation was endangered as greatly on the 8th of May as they are now on the 3Oth of June. Yet I find that when the repeal of the malt tax was proposed, an hon. Gentleman rose in his place and said that if the Motion were to be considered on merely fiscal and financial grounds, it might be easily disposed of, but that there were far higher and other considerations in connexion with the question; and in the division in favour of this Motion, asking a surrender of 5,000,000l., I find the name of Benjamin Disraeli. Have we two Benjamins in the field? Is there one Benjamin so reckless of public credit that he votes for the sacrifice at one swoop of 5,000,000l. of revenue in a critical year?—and another Benjamin who is so scrupulous that he is afraid to meddle with a surplus of 1,900,000l., fearing that it may endanger the finances of the country? In these "days of vacillation," to use the phrase of the hon. Gentleman, surely some explanation is required; and perhaps he, in those eloquent sentences which he knows so well to frame, will clear away so curious an inconsistency. An intelligible explanation on such a point would, no doubt, be much more satisfactory to the House than the exuberant flights of fancy in which the lion. Gentleman has to-night so largely indulged. I will not enter further into an answer to the hon. Gentleman. I beg the House to observe that this is really the question raised—Is or is not the window tax to be repealed? This is the second time the hon. Gentleman has raised that question in an Amendment. If the House is in favour of the repeal of the tax, it is hound to negative the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. I have not changed the opinions which I expressed in proposing the repeal of this tax, and the substitution of a modified house tax. I believe now, as I believed then, that it will afford a great relief to all classes in this country, and to the agricultural class not less than to others. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman can be to support the public credit and to maintain a surplus. I think surplus enough is left after such repeal of taxes as I have proposed. And believing, as I do, that the substitution of a house tax would be adequately productive for the demands of the Exchequer, and, on the other hand, would immeasurably contribute to the health and comfort of our follow-subjects, I should he excessively grieved if the decision of the House tonight reverses that which it recorded on a former occasion—thus rejecting what I regard as the greatest boon of the financial year to the country. The question now put by the hon. Member is plainly aye or no—Shall the house tax be repealed? and I hope and trust that the House will by a large majority reply in the affimative.

said, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was one of the deepest importance, considered with a view to the prospective condition of the public interest; and he wished briefly to state his sincere concurrence with the hon. Gentleman in his belief that it was highly inexpedient to sacrifice a large amount of public revenue at the present moment, and particularly when there was a largo amount of an unsettled claim with the East India Company. But, at the same time, he wished to guard himself from being precluded by voting on the present occasion against voting for any remission of taxation which might hereafter be proposed, either by the Government or any hon. Gentlemen opposite. He considered the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was right in his views with respect to all the most important interests of the country, and, therefore, he would vote for the present Motion.

said, he must confess that in listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire it had occurred to him that there was one part of it which he could have wished to have received a fuller development under his hands. He referred to the particular course which he appeared to indicate the House should pursue in the event of the adoption of his Motion. But with the objections which he (Mr. Gladstone) had stated upon a former occasion to the financial plans of the Government, he could not refuse to give his support to a Motion which, in his opinion, assorted a sound financial principle in opposition to those plans. He should endavour to state with great brevity, and at the same time with great plainness, the course which it appeared to him the House was bound to pursue. At the commencement of the year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to repeal the window tax; and he likewise proposed the renewal of the income tax for the ordinary period of three years. Even under these circumstances, he must confess it appeared to him most unwise and most hazardous as regarded the permanent maintenance of public credit to part with an impost of so important a character as that of the window tax; and in professing to find a substitute for that impost in the form of a house tax, to place that house tax upon the very narrow, and, as he thought, the very illegitimate, basis which the Government had chosen for its foundation. He objected to the plan proposed by the Government with reference to the house tax for two reasons. In the first place, he objected to it because it was the reintroduction, without the slightest qualification, of those great anomalies in the imposition of the tax, which, he would venture to say, were the sole cause of its abolition in 1834. He alluded to the inequality of its incidence upon the mansions of the great as compared with mansions of a medium character—with houses for the middle classes, and houses used for the purposes of business. He had not heard this objection maintained on the present occasion, on the principle, he supposed, that people did not like to look a gift horse in the mouth; because the right hon. Gentleman, though proposing a house tax, proposed at the same time to remove the window tax, and the objections to the former imposts were, therefore, allowed to pass in silence. But he, for one, could not regard the house tax as resting on a secure foundation, which reintroduced those very objectionable features which had once before been the cause of the abolition of the tax. But even if he were to overlook this flaw, he could not commend the plan of a house tax, which exempted altogether from the operation of the tax something like six-sevenths of the house property of the country. There was no reason in the world why they should take so irrational a course with reference to the foundation of a house tax, which would give something like a charter of exemption to such a large mass of house property. Now, he knew no more legitimate subject of taxation, if taxed on a sound general principle, than house property. If it was true, and upon that he gave no opinion, that house property was subjected to severe burdens with regard to local purposes, at least it was subjected to no undue amount of burden with respect to the Imperial Treasury. It seemed to him, then, the most obvious and unexceptional of the permanent resources of the country; and he, for one, could not prevail upon himself to give a vote which would greatly prejudice, under ordinary circumstances, the interests of the country with respect to an impost so important. But the position in which the House now stood with regard to the income tax seemed to him to add tenfold importance to the consideration. If they grudged that a sacrifice should be made with respect to a duty on houses at a time when it was anticipated that the income tax was to be renewed for three years, how much more formidable a character did the question now assume? He trusted that the House would seriously consider for a moment the position in which the income tax at present stood. It was impossible to conceal from themselves the fact that the proceedings of the present year had inflicted a heavy blow upon that impost. It was scarcely possible, he thought, to conceive that its renewal could be again proposed to the House without serious, probably an obstinate, opposition from one or more parties in that House. There was a large body of Gentlemen in that House who said that it was grossly unjust to levy the income tax upon a uniform percentage on the several Schedules embodied in the Act; and those Gentlemen had so far succeeded in impressing the House with their views as to have obtained a Parliamentary Committee, avowedly for the purpose of considering, not exclusively, but mainly, whether there ought to be a varied percentage upon the different Schedules of the Act. Then again the Government were certainly not to be looked upon as among the friends of the income tax. He might question the case of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in 1848, gave in something very like his adhesion to the principle of the income tax as a permanent part of the taxation of the country. But however that might be, speaking of the party opposite, it was manifest that when the income tax was proposed it was received by them with the most persevering opposition; and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had within the last few weeks spoken of the tax in terms which showed that no unvarying support of that tax was to be expected from that section of the House. On the other hand, there was another party whose opinion he gathered to be, that the frauds perpetrated under Schedule D were of such a nature and extent as to constitute a serious, and, if not mitigated, an insuperable, objection to the renewal of the tax. He had said that there was a party opposite who insisted that there must be a varied percentage under the different schedules; but there was also a party on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who, under no circumstance, would be induced to assent to the renewal of the income tax if the percentage were varied, because they believed (whether rightly or wrongly), that, apart entirely from considerations of policy, the House were absolutely precluded, by a solemn and formal pledge on the Statute- book, from adopting anything in the nature of such a variation. In what condition, then, was this unfortunate income tax, which had been committed to the mercies of a Parliamentary Committee, to come out of that Committee? Would it come out with a recommendation in favour of a varied percentage under the different Schedules? If it did, then he predicted that the income tax would not receive the assent of the House. If, on the other hand, it came out of the Committee without such a recommendation, it would still be certain to meet with the hostility of a powerful party. It was impossible, indeed, to forecast all the contingencies to which the tax might be exposed; but this he would venture to say, that this great impost which yielded 5,000,000l. of revenue was placed in a most precarious position; and if it was placed in this precarious position, he asked the House whether it was politic, whether it was altogether honest, to exclude from their view a contingency so great, and at the same time so possible, as the total lapse of the income tax? For if it did lapse, how was the House to maintain public credit? Hon. Members talked, and talked justly, of economy; and he, for one, did not believe that the House had in that respect exceeded its duty in enforcing economy and retrenchment. He hoped, indeed, to see more done in that direction. Arrangements had already been made which would effect in future years a considerable saving of public expenditure in connexion with the debt; but was there any man so sanguine as to believe—for most certainly if there was, he (Mr. Gladstone) was not prepared to follow him—that they could dispense with the income tax, maintain public credit, and at the same time altogether withhold their hand from a new description of taxation? Well, what was this new description of taxation to be? With the resources of a fair house tax to fill up some portion of the deficiency, he should not be afraid to meet these contingencies. But the house tax was placed on a basis so narrow that it could never be made really or considerably productive in an exigency. This was the foundation of the objection he entertained to the plan of the Government; and if asked "what have you to recommend?" he disclaimed, in the first place, on the part of those who were not connected with the Government, the duty of pointing out in detail, or anything approaching to detail, any of the financial measures to be adopted, and especially of those connected with direct taxation. But he would say that what they ought to do was this—to adopt the principle laid down in the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that the surplus they had on hand was not at the moment to be given away without the slightest reference to future necessities. But if they thought fit to adhere to the reductions proposed, the least they ought to do was to place the house tax upon an equitable footing, and upon a basis so widened as to yield a considerable sum to the public Exchequer. What should be the precise width of that basis he did not pretend to say—whether they should take the limit of the Parliamentary franchise—and tax houses above 10l. only; whether they should go lower and make all house property by a graduated scale liable to taxation; or whether it would be right to levy a tax on the owner or the occupier, were questions on which it would be premature for him at the present moment to express an opinion; but the fundamental objection to the Government plan was that it cut off to a certain extent a most valuable source of public revenue at a moment when by the course adopted by the House with respect to the income tax, a resort to that resource might be highly essential to the maintenance of the interests of the country and of the public credit, which they all had at heart. In voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, he was very far from saying that Her Majesty's Government would have done right in withdrawing the changes which they had proposed to make by the Customs Bill. The sacrifice of revenue proposed by the Bill he cheerfully assented to, because the public had a right to expect some consideration in return for the renewal of the income tax. Furthermore, when he considered that the remission of the duty upon coffee and timber was a remission which took effect incidentally upon the first Vote of the House; that the transactions of the country in these two important trades had been conducted for three or four months with reference to that remission; and, further, that the nature of the revenue which they affect is not an inflexible description of revenue which has no principle of reproduction, but is of that elastic description which replaces itself by increased energy imparted to the trade and commerce of the country—he would, under no circumstances, be an objecting party to the Customs Bill. But with regard to the house tax, he could not reconcile it to his view of public duty to allow it to pass without opposition, because it was an Act which would sacrifice an important source of revenue, which might have been drawn from houses without the slightest objection on the part of the public, and which would have tended to maintain the public credit under a necessity which might become extremely formidable, and which events showed to be rather near at hand.

said, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had declared that he did not wish the country to understand that the window tax was not to be repealed; and the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford did not wish, in supporting the present Amendment, to affirm that the remission of the duties on coffee or timber should not take place. The Motion before the House declared it inexpedient to make any considerable reduction of taxation in the course of the present Session, especially considering that the income tax had been voted only for a single year. That Motion had been supported by two distinguished Members of that House; by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his scat. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had declared that he did not wish the House to understand that he was against the repeal of the window tax. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had stated it as his opinion, that in supporting this Motion, the House did not express an opinion that the duties on coffee should be continued. What was the question before the House? This was the practical question which the House had to determine, namely, whether the arrangement proposed by the Government with regard to the remission of the window tax, and the reduction of the duty on coffee and timber, should be persisted in; or whether, on the other hand, the determination of this House to grant the income tax only for a single year was a matter of such grave import as to justify them in deranging the whole of the financial scheme of the year, and disappointing the expectations of the country with regard to the proposed repeal of the window tax, and reduction of the duty on coffee and timber. He was not at all prepared to justify the Resolution which had been adopted to continue the income tax for a single year, for he had never so much regretted any Vote since he had had the honour of a seat in that House. He knew that that Vote had been come to by a union of parties of the utmost diversity of sentiment, and the most discordant opinions. He was not, however, of opinion that any fatal blow had been struck thereby at the public credit of this country. He should be unjust, indeed, if he imputed any such motive to those who carried that Vote, for he believed that there had never been a period when there existed, both in this House and in the country, a greater desire to maintain at all hazards that public credit which, it had been justly observed in the course of that debate, had been not only the pillar of our strength, but the stay of our financial prosperity. He did not believe that the public credit rested on such an unstable foundation as seemed by some to be supposed, and he had regretted the Vote on the income tax on very different grounds. He felt assured that whatever course the House might take with regard to the income tax, they would see to place the finances of the country on a satisfactory footing. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that the whole of the direct taxation of the country was mainly of a character to which exceptions attached—that there were exceptions connected with a house tax, and exceptions connected with the window tax; but these exceptions connected with direct taxes pressed more exclusively on the rich classes; the great mass of our indirect taxation pressed with undue severity on the industrious and hardworking body of the people. The right hon. Gentleman must also recollect that the window tax, for which the house tax was a substitute, was by no moans a tax without exemptions, and some of these exemptions not of a very clear or defined character. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had stated that he was prepared to proffer on behalf of his friends, to the shipbuilding interest, the advantage of allowing ships to be built in bond in this country. He should be very sorry to see a resort to the exploded and injurious system of multiplying manufactures in bond; and he could show that at this moment there did not exist any reason for adopting such a course as respected the shipbuilding interest. The whole amount of foreign tonnage registered in England in 1850, the year when the trade had been opened, was not more than 10,000 tons; and he believed that in the port of London alone a larger amount of tonnage had been built by British shippers on foreign account.

said, it appeared he had been the marplot of the Government on this question of the income tax. He was, however, under no alarm whatever on the subject. With respect to the present budget of the Ministry, he had nothing to object, only that it did not go far enough. He agreed with the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the reduction of the duty on timber and coffee was highly necessary to carry out the plans and principles of free trade which had been left to the Government by the late Sir Robert Peel; and he (Mr. Hume) only wished to sec these principles carried further. He was one of those who thought that the repeal of the window tax was highly necessary. The country expected it, and he should be sorry to see any deviation from the resolution to repeal it. He entirely approved of the house tax, but disapproved of the manner in which it was to be carried out. He would have exempted all houses of 40s. and under, but no other property should have had any exception in its favour. Exceptions were always the cause of fraud, discontent, and vexation, when carried into the matter of taxation. He had to ask what it was that the Members of Her Majesty's Government were afraid of from the inquiry on the income tax? Had not every speaker denounced that tax as unjust, and not to be tolerated? The noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, joined with hon. Gentlemen opposite in wishing the tax done away with. He (Mr. Hume) had said that the time would come when it would be a permanent tax. They talked of the opinions of the hon. Gentlemen on this side and on that side, but he would tell them that there was another side out of doors—the country at large. He wished to raise the taxation of the country in the manner the least burdensome to the industry of the country. Hitherto the taxes had been levied on the industrious classes, and the rich had paid but little. Of the 52,500,000l. which was now raised, the House would scarcely believe that 84 per cent was levied on the industry of the country, and the remaining portion was doubtful and mixed. It was with the view of improving our system of taxation that he wished for a reconsideration of it altogether, and he considered the Committee on the Income Tax as a step towards a general revision of our taxation. In placing that taxation on a just footing, no difficulty need be experienced.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 129: Majority 113.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.Elliot, hon. J. E.
Adair, H. E.Estcourt J. B. B.
Adair, R. A. S.Evans, Sir De L.
Aglionby, H. A.Evans, J.
Alcock, T.Evans, W.
Anson, hon. Col.Ewart, W.
Armstrong, Sir A.Ferguson, Col.
Bagshaw, J.Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.FitzPatrick. rt. hon. J. W.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.Fitzroy, hon. H.
Bass, M. T.Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Beckett, W.Forster, M.
Bell, J.Fortescue, C.
Bellow, R. M.Fox, R. M.
Berkeley, Adm.Fox, W. J.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.Freestun, Col.
Berkeley, C. L. G.Glyn, G. C.
Bernal, R.Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Birch, Sir T. B.Granger, T. C.
Bouverie, hon. E. P.Greenall, G.
Boyd, J.Grenfell, C. P.
Boyle, hon. Col.Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Brockman, E. D.Grey, R. W.
Brotherton, J.Grosvenor, Lord R.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.Guest, Sir J.
Bunbury, E. H.Hall, Sir B.
Buxton, Sir E. N.Hanmer, Sir J.
Cardwell, E.Hardcastle, J. A.
Carew, W. H. P.Hastie, A.
Carter, J. B.Hastie, A.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.Hatchell, rt. hon. J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.Hawes, B.
Chaplin, W. J.Headlam, T. E.
Christy, S.Heneage, G. H. W.
Clay, J.Heneage, E.
Clay, Sir W.Henry, A.
Clements, hon. C. S.Hervey, Lord A.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.Heywood, J.
Cobden, R.Heyworth, L.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.Hindley, C.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.Hobhouse, T. B.
Collins, W.Hodges, T. L.
Cowan, C.Hodges, T. T.
Cowper, hon. W. F.Hogg, Sir J. W.
Craig, Sir W. G.Hollond, R.
Crawford, W. S.Howard, Lord E.
Crawford, R. W.Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Crowder, R. B.Howard, hon. J. K.
Currie, R.Howard, hon. E. G. G.
Curteis, H. M.Howard, P. H.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.Howard, Sir R.
Dawes, E.Hudson, G.
Dawson, hon. T. V.Hume, J.
Denison, J. E.Hutchins, E. J.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.Hutt, W.
Divett, E.Johnstone, J.
Douglas, Sir C. E.Kershaw, J.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.Kildare, Marq. of
Duke, Sir J.Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Duncan, Visct.Langston, J. H.
Duncan, G.Lawley, hon. B. R.
Duncuft J.Legh, G. C.
Dundas, Adm.Lemon, Sir C.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.Lennard, T. B.
East, Sir J. B.Lewis, G. C.
Ebrington, Visct.Lindsay, hon. Col.
Ellice, E.Loch, J.
Ellis, J.Locke, J.

Mackie, J.Russell, F. C. H.
Mackinnon, W. A.Salwey, Col.
M'Gregor, J.Sandars, J.
Mangles, R. D.Scobell, Capt.
Marshall, J. G.Scrope, G. P.
Marshall, W.Seymour, Lord
Martin, J.Shafto, R. D.
Martin, C. W.Shelburne, Earl of
Masterman, J.Sheridan, R. B.
Matheson, A.Slaney, R. A.
Matheson, Col.Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Melgund, Visct.Smith, J. A.
Milner, W. M. E.Smith, M. T.
Milnes, R. M.Smith, J. B.
Mitchell, T. A.Smollett, A.
Moffatt, G.Somers, J. P.
Molesworth, Sir W.Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Moncreiff, J.Spearman, H. J.
Morris, D.Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.Stanton, W. H.
Mowatt, F.Staunton, Sir G. T.
Mulgrave, Earl ofSutton, J. H. M.
Muntz, G. F.Tancred, H. W.
Murphy, F. S.Tennont, R. J.
O'Connell, M. J.Thicknesse, R. A.
Ogle, S. C. H.Thompson, Col.
Ord, W.Thornely, T.
Osborne, R.Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Owen, Sir J.Towneley, J.
Paget, Lord A.Townley, R. G.
Paget, Lord C.Vane, Lord H.
Paget, Lord G.Villiers, Visct.
Palmer, R.Villiers, hon. C.
Palmerston, Visct.Vivian, J. H.
Pechell, Sir G. B.Walmsley, Sir J.
Peel, F.Watkins, Col. L.
Perfect, R.Wawn, J. T.
Peto, S. M.Wegg-Prosser, F. R.
Philips, Sir G. R.Wellesley, Lord C.
Pigott, F.Westhead, J. P. B.
Pilkington, J.Willcox, B. M.
Plowden, W. H. C.Williams, J.
Price, Sir R.Williams, W.
Pusey, P.Willyams, H.
Rawdon, Col.Williamson, Sir H.
Reid, Col.Wilson, J.
Ricardo, J. L.Wilson, M.
Ricardo, O.Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Rice, E. R.Wood, Sir W. P.
Rich, H.Wrightson, W. B.
Robartes, T. J. A.Wyvill, M.
Romilly, Col.
Romilly, Sir J.


Rumbold, C. E.Hayter, W. G.
Russell, Lord J.Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.Brisco, M.
Archdall, Capt. M.Brooke, Lord
Bagot, hon. W.Buck, L. W.
Baillie, H. J.Buller, Sir J. Y.
Baird, J.Bunbury, W. M.
Baldock, E. H.Burghley, Lord
Baring, T.Campbell, Sir A. I.
Barron, Sir H. W.Cholmeley, Sir M.
Bateson, T.Christopher, R. A.
Bennet, P.Clive, H. B.
Bentinck, Lord H.Cobbold, J. C.
Berkeley, hon. G. F.Codrington, Sir W.
Blandford, Marq. ofConolly, T.
Booth, Sir R. G.Corbally, M. E.
Bramston, T. W.Cotton, hon. W. H. S.
Bremridge, R.Disraeli, B.

Dod, J. W.Meagher, T.
Drax, J. S. W. S. E.Manners, Lord C. S.
Dundas, G.March, Earl of
Farnham, E. B.Miles, P. W. S.
Farrer, J.Mullings, J. R.
Fellowes, E.Mundy, W.
Forbes, W.Naas, Lord
Forester, hon. G. C. W.Napier, J.
Fox, S. W. L.Neeld, J.
Frewen, C. H.Neeld, J.
Fuller, A. E.Newdegate, C. N.
Gallwey, Sir W. P.Newport, Visct.
Galway, Visct.Noel, hon. G. J.
Gilpin, Col.O'Brien, Sir L.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.O'Brien, Sir T.
Goddard, A. L.O'Flaherty, A.
Gooch, E. S.Ossulston, Lord
Goold, W.Packe, C. W.
Gordon, Adm.Powlett, Lord W.
Gore, W. O.Prime, R.
Grace, O. D. J.Renton, J. C.
Granby, Marq. ofRepton, G. W. J.
Grogan, E.Scott, hon. F.
Guernsey, LordScully, F.
Hallewell, E. G.Seaham, Visct.
Halsey, T. P.Smythe, hon. G.
Hamilton, G. A.Stafford, A.
Hamilton, J. H.Stanley, E.
Hamilton, Lord C.Sullivan, M.
Herbert, H. A.Taylor, T. E.
Herbert, rt. hon. S.Thesiger, Sir F.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.Thornhill, G.
Higgins, G. G. O.Trevor, hon. G. R.
Hildyard, R. C.Tyler, Sir G.
Hildyard, T. B. T.Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Hill, Lord E.Verner, Sir W.
Hope, Sir J.Vesey, hon. T.
Hornby, J.Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Hotham, LordVyse, R. H. R. H.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.Waddington, H. S.
Jones, Capt.Walsh, Sir J. B.
Knightley, Sir C.Whiteside, J.
Knox, Col.Williams, T. P.
Langton, W. H. P. G.Wodehouse, E.
Lennox, Lord A. G.Wynn, H. W. W.
Lennox, Lord H. G.Yorke, hon. E. T.
Leslie, C. P.Young, Sir J.
Long, W.


Lowther, hon. Col.Beresford, W.
Lygon, hon. Gen.Mackenzie, W. F.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

House resumed; Committee report progress.