said, he wished to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether he could inform the House of the contents of the despatches received per the Queen of the South, from the Cape of Good Hope, some hours previously? He wished also to know if the right hon. Gentleman could state what were the prospects of the Kafir war; whether there was any reason to suppose it had extended to the north-east frontier; whether the Colonists were leaving to join the republic beyond the Kei; and whether any memorials had been received from the inhabitants of Cape Town, complaining of the postponement of the Constitution for that Colony?

said, the hon. Gentleman had put a series of questions founded on the arrival of the Queen of the South only a few hours previously, the despatches of which had been only so short a time in his hands that he had not had the opportunity of ascertaining all then-contents. Nevertheless, he thought he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to these questions. He was sorry to say, as regarded the first, that he would be hardly justified in stating to the House that the Kafir war was at an end; but he was fully justified in stating that the stronghold of the enemy—the Waterkloof—was entirely clear of Kafirs, and in the hands of General Cathcart, whose expression was that he "hoped it was now clear of an enemy for ever." In the Amatolas district, the rebellious chiefs—Sandili, Macomo, and their followers—were still sheltered; but the troops were in active pursuit of them— indeed, they had nearly been arrested by the gallantry and bravery of our officers; and he was glad to say that he believed no danger existed as regarded them. With respect to the second question, he had no reason whatever to suppose that the war had extended to the north-east frontier, or indeed that it had spread in any other direction; and he had no knowledge of the other fact adverted to in the third question of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to memorials from Cape Town on the subject of the postponement of the Constitution, he had only received one, besides the despatch of the Government of the Colony. He had, however, received a despatch from Governor Darling on the subject, in which it was stated that no excitement whatever prevailed in the Colony, and that the general feeling was quite satisfactory.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had some time ago, in answer to a question from the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), promised to lay the papers on the table in reference to the Constitution at the Cape, and he wished now to know when they would be ready, for he observed they had been read in the Assembly at the Cape, and it was hard they had not obtained them here.

said, that the papers moved for by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, on the subject of the Constitution of the Cape, had not been withheld by any fault of the Colonial Office. They had been only asked for a few days since—they were now nearly ready; and when he had added those received by the last arrival, they should be laid before the House without delay.

said, he also wished to ask a question. The territory called British Kafraria had been hitherto treated as British territory, and he now wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give them, along with the correspondence that had been promised, the instructions he had sent out as to the character which the territory in question would bear at the conclusion of the war?

said, the correspondence on the subject of the future course of the Government with respect to the boundary of British Kafraria, at the conclusion of the war, was not one of the papers moved for by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. The subject involved in that question was very extensive, and by no means of an easy nature, for it referred not only to the eastern boundary, but also to the northern boundary of the Colony. He was, however, in correspondence with General Cathcart on the subject of the eastern boundary—he had sent a despatch by the last mail, but till he had received an answer he could not give a reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, if the statements which had appeared in the Cape newspapers were true— namely, that Kafirs taken in the clearing of the Waterkloof were immediately hung; and if so, whether this was justified by the laws of war?

said, he had no official knowledge of the fact alluded to in the first part of the question. No mention was made in any of the despatches he had received of executions. As regarded the second part of the question—with respect to the rules of war—he apprehended that the rule of war was, that when an enemy showed no quarter, to meet him in a similar spirit; hut, on the other hand, he had no hesitation in saying to execute a prisoner was not consistent with the laws of war. It should, however, be always borne in mind that a great portion of the Kafirs and Hottentots engaged in this war were British subjects, and as such were guilty of high treason. He certainly had seen in a newspaper, and he had also heard it through a private channel, that in clearing the Waterkloof some persons were hung —under what circumstances he could not say; but he would not be doing justice to the extreme gallantry and bravery of both officers and soldiers employed in that task, if he believed for a moment that they had, by any unnecessary act of cruelty to the enemy, tarnished the high reputation which they had so nobly acquired.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the truth of the statement?

said, he should have added that he had seen the general orders issued by General Cathcart to the troops prior to the expedition across the Kei, and that one of the most distinct orders among them was to avoid any unnecessary loss of life. He (Sir J. Pakington) had, however, no objection to make inquiry into the statement; but he should also observe at the same time that he had the fullest confidence in the humanity and discretion of General Cathcart, as well as in the bravery and gallantry of the troops.

said, a desire had been expressed on the previous night that the discussion should, if possible, be concluded that evening. It had, however, only lasted as yet two nights, and it must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his skill as an orator, had been compelled to occupy nearly the whole of one night in the development of his plan. He (Sir De L. Evans) thought, then, it was rather too much to expect that the whole of the representatives of the country should be called upon to decide in two evenings upon this important subject. Again, only one metropolitan Member had yet had an opportunity of addressing the Committee upon it. Another reason was, that time ought to be given for the opinion of the country to be expressed with regard to it; and on all these grounds he hoped the Committee would not be pressed to a decision to-night.

I am sure, Sir, there is no Member in this House who is less inclined to throw any difficulties in the way of Gentlemen expressing their opinions than myself, and I am sure I have never exhibited any desire to restrict our debates. I am perfectly aware that when measures of this extent are brought forward it is extremely desirable that a sufficient interval should elapse to enable the country fully to consider them, and that there should be ample discussion in this House; but I cannot but remember the moment at which we are assembled, and the absolute necessity that there is for the House adjourning for a considerable period. I assure the House that nothing is more foreign to my nature, or more repugnant to the wishes of the Government, than in any way to precipitate a conclusion upon any great constitutional point on which the will of the House has not been perfectly expressed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to my statement; but he must recollect that that statement included a great variety of subjects. I do think it would be only fair to the Government if before the holidays we could take one vote. I do not want in any way to narrow the issue. I wish, if I possibly can, to put it on a principle. I do not ask any Gentleman on either side of the House, by voting on this occasion, to come to any direct vote in favour of the repeal of the Tea Duties, or the Hop Duties, or the Malt Duty, or of any detail of the Income Tax, or even of the mere details of the vote on which we are to come to an issue to-night. All I ask the House is, that it will at least affirm what we consider a vital principle, and that it will allow Us to bring forward measures of financial reform (not merely with reference to the particular plans we propose) which depend upon the country being agreed to bear a certain quantity of direct taxation. I do not ask any Gentleman to be in the least pledged by the vote he may come to to-night to any details of this Resolution. I only ask you to affirm that the area of direct taxation should be extended.

said, he regretted that he should stand for a moment in the way of hon. Gentlemen expressing their opinions, whose opinions were of far higher value than his; but at the same time he would be sorry to give a vote upon a question differing from those with whom he had hitherto had the pleasure to act—especially differing from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), for whose opinion on all matters of general policy he had the highest regard and respect—without stating his reasons for doing so. He had come to the consideration of the proposition of Her Majesty's Government in a different spirit from that which appeared to have actuated those around him. He was one of those who had been returned to Parliament to maintain intact the great measures of commercial freedom on which the fiscal policy of the country had been regulated, and which he believed had tended to improve the condition of all classes; and when he looked at the measures of Her Majesty's Government, it was with no small degree of gratification he found that there was no attempt to reverse the policy which they had adopted—a policy which the Government had acquiesced in—a policy which Parliament had sanctioned. When he looked at the measures of the Government, he found in them a frank admission of the justice of that policy; and he trusted the House and the country would yet find in those Ministers the ablest supporters of a wise extension of that policy, He was not prepared to question the prudence of the course which had been marked out by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the order in which the items of the Budget were to be taken. If, indeed, he believed that the income tax was henceforth to be considered as a temporary source of revenue—if he believed that any party in this House were prepared to propose measures for its reduction, tending to ultimate abolition—if he believed that the finances of the country would admit of such a step, then he might agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that it was their first duty to look to the position of that tax, and to place it on a proper footing. Put believing, as he did, that the income tax must, at all events for the present, be viewed as a permanent source of taxation—believing it to be necessary to carry out the financial arrangements proposed—looking to the conduct of different Governments with respect to this tax—seeing that whenever it was on the point of expiring, arguments were found for its reimposition—-believing it was not an unpopular tax if fairly adjusted—he could not consider that it was of much importance whether the income tax were dis- cussed now or at a future period. Neither could he wonder at the position which had been assumed by the Government themselves. He could not wonder that they were anxious to ascertain the position in which they stood before the House and the country. Nothing was so objectionable as a Government on sufferance. A Government on sufferance was injurious to the men who formed the Administration, and it was objectionable for the sake of the best interests of the country. They had had experience of a Government of sufferance—they recollected the last three years of the Administration of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), composed of men of great ability, and presided over by the noble Lord himself, whoso integrity and ability were unimpeachable; but the House would recollect that for two years he was impeded in bringing forward any measures of public importance simply by the want of power to carry them out. He thought, therefore, that the Government were right in endeavouring to ascertain their position; they might not have chosen the best, but they had not certainly chosen the least dangerous question on which to test it, and they were not open to the charge of an immoderate desire to retain office. To his mind there were two principles involved in this Budget: the first was a readjustment of the direct taxation of the country; and the second was an extension of the policy which they all supported—a reduction of the duties on articles of general consumption. With regard to the first principle— when he looked at the fact that there were two direct taxes that were imposed upon the country, and that a comparatively small portion of the community were subjected to them, he thought it was matter for grave consideration how far they should allow a system to continue which was obnoxious to every principle of sound policy, and how they could go on for any length of time with a system which excluded a portion of the community deeply interested in the welfare, tranquillity, (and good government of the country from bearing a fair proportionate share in its burdens. With regard to the second principle—an extension in the reduction of duties on articles of general consumption—that appeared to him to be a question which depended entirely on the financial condition of the country. He would never be a party to shifting taxation from one class to another, for the purpose of relieving or benefiting any particular interest. Such a principle was contrary to the policy by which he had always been guided. If it should happen that by the reduction of the duty on one article of consumption any particular interest was benefited, so much the better for it, hut the advantage to that class alone was no ground for proposing such a reduction. He now came to the consideration of the Budget. Whilst he looked at the separate propositions, he was still desirous to regard it as a whole. In the first place, as the representative—the unworthy representative— of a community largely interested in the shipping interest, he. would return thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the care and attention they had bestowed on that interest. His right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) insinuated the other evening that the measures now proposed by Her Majesty's Government for the relief of the shipping interest were measures prepared by their predecessors. If, indeed, they were so prepared—if, indeed, the predecessors of the present Government were aware of the wants of that community, and had not the courage to bring forward those propositions, all he could say was they were more to blame than he had before believed them to be. But whether that were so or not, as Her Majesty's present Government had had the courage to deal with that question, he tendered them the thanks of the community he represented, and he thought he might also say the thanks of the community at large. He begged also to say, with reference to the shipping interest, during the existence of the late Government he had, on several occasions, brought before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax the importance of abolishing the timber duties, not so much because he considered the amount of the duty as a point of importance, as because he thought it unjust in principle to maintain a duty on the raw material in manufacture, while the manufactured article itself was admitted to free competition. He trusted the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers would be directed to that subject, as he believed that nothing would more tend to the benefit of the shipowner than the reduction of that duty. He came now to the question of the income tax. He had always thought it a matter for grave consideration how far Parliament was justified, in 1841, in placing the scale of exemption so high as 150l.; but it must be recollected that at that time there were important reasons for the course which his late right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) pursued. At that time there was a large deficiency in the Exchequer. It was necessary immediately to meet that deficiency. It was of importance to pas the measure with as little opposition as possible, and it was distinctly declared it would be only imposed for three years. But now that it was to be continued as a permanent tax, none of those arguments held good for allowing it to remain in its present position, and every argument of policy and justice was in favour of its reconsideration. Though he did not bind himself to the details of the Government proposition, he believed it was a step in the right direction. There was another point with reference to the income tax on which he wished to say a word; and here he was sorry to say he was at issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone). He knew the authorities his right hon. Friend had quoted were high authorities. He knew that the names of Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel must always have great weight in that House, and he admitted that the opinion of his right hon. Friend himself was always worthy of great consideration. But there was an authority still higher than the names of these most eminent statesmen, and that authority was his own sense of what was just and right; and he must say that he could not bring himself to believe that it was just and right to levy the same tax upon precarious incomes derived from daily toil and the labour of mental and bodily faculties, as upon incomes of a permanent nature. Precarious incomes depended any moment upon the visitation of God. At any moment the man who had only a precarious income might lose either his mental or bodily faculties, and be wholly incapacitated for exertion; but the man who enjoyed a permanent income, whatever might be the state of his health, still continued to receive that income, and still possessed the power to make a provision for his family. He might be wrong, but his sense of justice revolted against taxing the two men equally, and believing the principle of distinction which the Government had introduced to be equitable, he could not refuse to give it his support. He came now to the question of the house tax. He knew how unpopular that tax was. He knew how he endangered the good feelings of those he represented; but there was a feeling above that—the sense of independence—which should induce every Member of the House of Commons to act as he thought best for the public welfare. It appeared to him that the arguments for extending the area of the income tax applied with equal force to the house tax. Great authorities had pronounced a house tax the best that could be imposed, as testing the means of the occupiers to contribute to the State. The hon. Member for the West Riding seemed to think a house tax was not necessary at all. That was not the question. The question they were considering was this: a house tax having been imposed, would they extend it? It was proposed to double the amount of the house tax, and to extend it to houses of 10l. a year, for the purpose of reducing the duty on malt. He had great doubts of the wisdom of reducing the duty on malt. Regarding it solely as a consumers' question, and not for a moment as benefiting the agricultural interests, he owned that from all he could gather from the highest authorities on the subject, the consumer would be benefited more than people allowed, not so much by the reduction of the tax itself as by the encouragement that reduction would afford to other parties to enter the brewing trade, whereby competition would be introduced, and the community secured the supply of beer at a cheaper rate. Whether the reduction should be made at the present moment or not was an- other question; but he was satisfied that the question must within a short time come before Parliament, for they had the best authorities in favour of the reduction of the malt tax; and he considered no authority on agricultural questions higher than that of the right hon Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham). If he might be permitted to make a suggestion, he would say that the House should look at the question solely as a question of principle, not of detail. Let them not look at the question of the reduction of the malt tax as involving the necessity of doubling the house tax in order to make up the deficiency; but let them confine themselves to the assertion of principles, and let those principles be the extension of the area of direct taxation, and a further reduction of duties on articles of general consumption. They would carry the first principle in the Resolutions to broaden the area of the house and income tax, and the second is that for the reduction of the tea duties. With respect to the tea duties, he had the honour to be a Member of the Committee which sat five years ago on the subject of those duties; and he well remembered that all the evidence laid before that Committee went to prove the arguments on which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based the proposed reduction— that the price of tea in China would be little, if at all, raised by the increased demand in this country, and that the consumers would be benefited, if not entirely, almost to the full amount of the reduction in duty. He knew no article which entered more into the consumption of the humbler classes, or any that they more dearly prized than tea, and he thought the Government deserved credit for endeavouring to diminish the cost of their favourite to those classes. There was another subject to which he wished to allude—the proposal to tax the funded property of Ireland. They had heard high authorities on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), and the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), had fully discussed that point. He did not pretend to enter into the discussion, but this he did say, as far as he had ever known, the funded property of Ireland must be considered as part of the funded property of the United Empire. If, therefore, there was a breach of faith with the public creditor, it was in 1841, when they imposed the income tax on the funded property of England, and left the funded property of Ireland exempt. One reason for not then imposing it on Ireland, was the distress of the landed interest—a distress unparalleled in any country in the world; but, in principle, for the life of him, he could not see why Ireland should not contribute to the resources of the Empire. He candidly acknowledged that no one knew better than he did the condition of Ireland, and the suffering which she had endured; but that was no justification for exempting Ireland from bearing a share of the national burdens. He felt that they, the Irish, had suffered greatly, but England had come forward with a generous hand to assist them. If there were any burdens resting upon the land, let those burdens be relieved; their existence was still no argument why the Irish should not be made to bear their proportion of the burdens on the Empire. He had endeavoured to take a general view of the propositions of Her Majesty's Government; and believing, as he did, that they amounted to the assertion of great and sound principles; believing, as he did, that many of them would he of great advantage to the people—he was not prepared to peril those principles and those great advantages by voting against the Resolution, because he might not approve of every proposition involved in it. In voting for the Government proposition he conceived he was affirming the principle of direct taxation properly adjusted, and the perseverance in those principles which the great statesman with whom he had so long the honour of acting had maintained, of mitigating those burdens which pressed most heavily on the springs of industry.

said, that so far from having any wish to review the financial scheme of the Government in a captious spirit, he was willing to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for two main points in his Budget. He felt that he was entitled to credit, in the first place, for the relief he had afforded to the shipping interest. He lamented, indeed, that he had not gone further, and taken off the duty on timber; but at any rate he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done in that line. He thought likewise that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a sagacious and statesmanlike view with respect to the Tea Duties. He was not disposed to quarrel and split straws with him because the reduction was to effected in six years instead of a less time, as proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacGregor), but would at once say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman deserved credit for those two propositions. He was even disposed to go further, and say that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward the Budget, was as clear a statement as had ever been put before that House. He (Mr. B. Osborne) knew no man in that House who combined the two antagonistic qualities of lucidity and obscurity so much as the right hon. Gentleman; hut he was bound to admit that in placing his financial statement before the House he had done so without any reserve or mystification, and that there could be no mistake on either side of the House as to what they were about to vote for in the present Budget. Having made these admissions, he trusted he might be allowed to look at the Budget as a whole; and if it was true, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Mills) stated on the previous night, that there was universal disappointment throughout the country at the contents of the Budget, he would take the liberty of asking what that disappointment had arisen from? Was it not from the magnificent promises which were held out by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The promises of the right hon. Gentleman were so magnificent that the people in the country actually thought that he had obtained possession by some means of the philosopher's stone—that a fiscal millennium was about to ensue—that the time was coming when tax-gathering would cease, and when the Consolidated Fund would be converted into a refuge for distressed agriculturists. What was it that "loomed in the distance" in the month of June last? If he understood the promise which was held out by the right hon. Gentleman in his address to his constituents, as published in the Times of June last, and again in his speech at Aylesbury, as reported in the same paper, it was just this —that in his forthcoming Budget he undertook no less a task than the total revision of the taxation of the country—not a mere shifting of taxation from the shoulders of one class to another. In the right hon. Gentleman's address to his constituents, dated June 2, 1852—and he (Mr. B. Osborne) begged the Committee to remark that that was not a common address, merely soliciting the votes of the electors, but an address in which he propounded a policy conveyed in beautiful language and most indistinct terms—in that address the right hon. Gentleman said—

"One of the soundest means, among others (to diminish the cost of production), is a revision of our taxation; juster notions of taxation are more prevalent than heretofore; the possibility of greatly relieving the burdens of the community by both adjustment and reduction seems to loom in the future."

Well, what happened in December? Had they had a revision of taxation? No. All that they had was an ingenious attempt to transfer a large portion of 2,500,000l., which was now raised through the means of an excise duty, to the shoulders of a class who were not supposed to be very favourable to the Government—the 10l. householders; and there was this peculiarity about the Budget, that whilst the house tax was to be immediately extended and doubled, and the income tax brought down to men receiving 50l. a year from real property, the remission of the tea duties was to be spread over six years. The taxes were immediate, but the remissions loomed in the future. He denied that the Budget would at all conduce to reconcile conflict- ing interests, as the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn) seemed to suppose. The noble Lord, he observed, had succeeded in catching the jargon of the other side of the House. It was merely "the area of taxation that was to be increased" by the present Budget, they were told—-which, to his (Mr. B. Osborne's) mind, looked very much like as if a certain portion of the Budget were about to be withdrawn. The Budget seemed to him as if it had been conceived in a hostile, if not a revengeful spirit, against the middle classes. [Cries of "Oh!"] What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say in that singularly lucid and clear speech of his? He said, that "the tenpounders were revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the repeal of the corn laws." These words conveyed something very distinct to his mind, and convinced him that the right hon. Gentleman had framed his Budget, not as a healing measure to reconcile conflicting interests, but as a scourge to the backs of those who were "revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the repeal of the corn laws." He had no doubt himself this was the spirit in which the Budget was framed, "You middle classes have gained everything by the repeal of the corn laws; if you will have free trade, you shall pay for it, therefore you shall have the house duty doubled and extended to houses of 10l., and the income tax extended to incomes from property of 50l." The noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) had rather entered into a discussion of direct taxation. He, for one, did not intend to argue the respective merits of direct or indirect taxation. He candidly owned that he was of opinion that in an old country having to raise 60,000,000l. annually, direct taxation should be extended with great caution. He had never been one of those who theorised on direct taxation. It might be very well in a new country; but he very much doubted if, in a country like this, with a great debt and a purely artificial system, they could proceed with safety in making all taxation direct. Sure he was that previous to extending the area of taxation, to use the now fashionable term, they were bound to undertake a review of the whole system of taxation with a view to its revision. But he doubted whether it was wise, politic, or beneficial to make all their taxes depend upon a system of direct taxation. He dismissed that part of the subject, to which he should not have alluded if it had not been alluded to by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn. He now came to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last night, and he must say that he thought the criticism of that right hon. Gentleman upon the observations of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) was most extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), alluding to the house tax, said that the right hon. Member for Halifax had imposed a most unjust tax upon houses; and what was the remedy proposed by the Home Secretary? Why, he thought the tax so unjust that he proposed to double it at once. [Mr. WALPOLE said that he had described the tax as unequal.] Well, but how did the right hon. Gentleman render it more equal? The Government adopted an arbitrary line, and proposed to extend the tax to 10l. houses; but if the tax was just in principle, why did they stop at 10l. houses? He was not one of those who were particularly enamoured of the house tax. He doubted the justice of that tax, and he thought the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had succeeded last night in making out a very strong case against it; but he asked the Home Secretary, if the house tax was unequal under the dynasty of the right hon. Member for Halifax, how he (Mr. Walpole) made it more equal by extending it to 10l. houses? Why were such large numbers of cottages in the country to be excluded from the operation of this extended tax, which would tell almost exclusively upon the towns? He contended that if this tax was just in principle, the Government were bound to apply it equally to town and country. What was sauce for your town goose was equally sauce for your rural gander, and it was not by plucking the feathers of the one bird that any compensation could be given to the other. Let the Committee mark that "compensation" was the term, and he was prepared to argue that this plan of laying on the house tax was nothing more than compensation to the agricultural interest. [Cries of" No!"] Several hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House said no. Were they inclined to listen to what he should adduce as proof? He was sorry to trouble the Committee with another quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had been so much quoted that he must bear a charmed life. What said he, in the month of March, and as late as the month of July, as to the plans for compensation to the landed interest? It was a very curious thing that the right hon. Gentleman had fixed upon the exact amount of compensation which he was ready to give. The light hon. Gentleman said—

"It is quite clear, by your system of local taxation, land is subject to 2,500,000l. more than any other property in the country."

Now this was the exact half of the malt tax which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take off. "If Parliament will not, in the manner I recommend"— namely, by countervailing duties, which were now given up—

"do justice to the agricultural interest, they must submit to a revision of the taxation of the country, and they may depend upon it the redress which their own sense of justice will ultimately prompt them to accord to the agricultural interest will be obtained in a manner far more coarsely, and by means much more expensive."…"The policy of Her Majesty's Ministers is to do justice to the land; to bring in measures of redress for all those great producing interests which are now suffering injustice; if the country will not have recourse to these remedial measures we bow to their decision; but, though we may not be Ministers, still, as Members of Parliament, we will labour for other measures of redress; we will, though in opposition"—[in which situation he (Mr. B. Osborne) hoped soon to see them]—"exert ourselves to obtain those countervailing and compensatory regulations which justice demands."

That was in the month of March; but, at a dinner of his constituents at Newport Pagnel, on the 14th of July, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"It is in reviewing the system of taxation, in the readjustment of that system, that the cultivators of the soil will find that compensation which they have a right to expect from the abrogation of the corn laws."

That was the opinion expressed in the month of July last by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government— [Laughter. ] Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the head of the Government. There was no doubt of that, and he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman, on account of his abilities and talents, in such a position. But what did a right hon. Gentleman say who was at the tail of the Government? He would inform the House what were the opinions of that right hon. Gentleman, which were so far valuable, because he was almost the last of the Romans—the last of the Protectionists. Whenever that right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter he, (Mr. B. Osborne) was always delighted to see it. It was true that a great many letters had been forged in the right hon. Gentleman's name; but, in order to secure correct copies, he (Mr. B. Osborne) did—what he recommended every hon. Member to do—he took in the Stamford Mercury, a most excellent paper, and, having the advantage of being the right hon. Gentleman's organ, no fictitious letters were printed in it. Well, what did the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say? He was going to read them the right hon. Gentleman's very last, last letter. He would pass over the right hon. Gentleman's avowal that he was one to maintain monarchical institutions, and all his reflections on his friend Sir Montague Cholmeley, and come to his opinion of the present Budget. Here was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster writing to those deluded Lincolnshire farmers, and here was what he said—

"The Government have presented a financial scheme, which, although there is only a surplus revenue of 1,300,000l., will relieve the agricultural interest of a vexatious impost to the amount of 2,500,000l."

Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem particular to a shade or two. He did not tell those to whom he wrote that in his way of stating the question he was leaving a deficit of 1,200,000l., but he endeavoured to persuade the electors of Lincolnshire that the financial scheme of the Government would, from a surplus revenue of 1,300,000l.—the Government, he (Mr. B. Osborne) supposed, being so generous as to make up the difference from their own salaries,—enable them to remove a vexatious impost of 2,500,000l. Now, he asked any Gentleman whether, after hearing these statements of the head and tail of the Government combining all shades of opinion, they could doubt that the house tax was laid upon the middle classes as what the right hon. Gentleman called a compensatory regulation for the suffering agricultural interest? [Cries of" Oh! ]"He thought there could be no doubt that this house tax was laid on for no other reason than as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, to compensate the agricultural classes for what they had lost by the repeal of the corn laws. Now, they had heard a great deal about the malt tax, and he must say that if the Exchequer was overflowing, and other more oppressive taxes were taken off, he, for one, would have no objection to vote for the repeal of the malt tax; but at the same time he thought it was one of those taxes which ought not to be removed, unless-the country was in a state of great pros- perity, and there was a real, and not a fictitious surplus in the Exchequer. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, in dealing with this question last night, had argued as if there was a great surplus in the Exchequer, and he did not seem for a moment to consider that by taking off the malt tax he was making a deficit. The right hon. Gentleman kept steadily out of the consideration of the Committee the fact, that in taking off the malt tax he was making such a deficit that the Government were obliged to extend and double the house tax, and to lower the income tax to 100l. of precarious income, and 50l. of fixed incomes. The right hon. Gentleman had argued the matter as if he was doing all this from an overflowing Exchequer, instead of commencing by making a deficit. He (Mr. B. Osborne) thought the right hon. Home Secretary, when he was arguing as to the effect of repealing the malt tax, and looked back for something like 100 years, quite forgot the altered habits and tastes of the people of this country. He seemed completely to have forgotten that the people of this country now consumed upwards of 60,000,0001b. of tea, and 40,000,000 lb. of coffee, a circumstance unheard of 100 years ago, and that the taste for those beverages was unquestionably extending. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not stop to argue this question upon sanitary grounds, for he believed that to be purely nonsense. He believed it would be just as possible to prove that there was a great increase of nervous disorders in consequence of the use of tea, as to prove that there was any harm in good wholesome beer—such beer as was brewed by his excellent Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass). He (Mr. B. Osborne) believed with the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Works (Lord J. Manners) beer to he a good, wholesome, and national beverage, and, therefore, he at once dismissed all sanitary considerations on the subject. He must deny, how-over, that this proposed reduction of the malt tax was a consumer's question. He denied that the price would be materially affected so far as the artisan and mechanic were concerned. What had every Gentleman who was acquainted with the brewing trade, and who had spoken during the debate, said on the subject? The hon. Member for Derby, who, he thought, had sailed rather near the wind with regard to protection, had admitted last night, that although barley had been falling in price for many years, the brewer was the only man who got the benefit. Indeed, that hon. Gentleman said in effect, "If you'll take off the whole malt tax, we will give you something handsome;" and it seemed that this "something handsome," if one-half the malt tax was repealed, would be a farthing a quart on the price of beer! But if it did not benefit the artisan, how would this partial remission of the malt tax benefit the farmer? Now, he was himself a considerable barley-grower. He had taken some pains in considering the subject, and he did not believe the proposed measure could benefit the agricultural interest generally. What portion of the agricultural interest was chiefly suffering at this time? Not the producers of barley. He knew that the barley-producers were never better off than they were now. He had himself sold barley last week, and he bad never got a better price since he had been farming. But what was the description of agricultural land, the occupiers of which were now complaining? The heavy clay lands, the wheat lands. Well, he might be told, perhaps, that this land would be forced into the production of barley; but what sort of barley would they get from such land? Every one at all acquainted with the subject knew that the inferior sorts of barley bad no sale with the brewers, but the brighter kinds of barley, such as the best Chevalier barley, were what they bought. It was then absurd to suppose that the partial remission of the malt tax could be of any benefit to the farmer. Then something had been said about the advantages which would be derived by the farmer with regard to the fattening of cattle; but the opinion of all the practical men of science—of Baron Leibig, of Dr. Lyon Playfair, and of others, who were examined before Lord Mont eagle's Committee in 1846—was, that cattle might be fattened much better upon ground barley than upon malt. He denied that this partial remission of the malt tax would benefit either the consumer by lowering the price of beer materially, or the agricultural interest as a whole, by allowing the farmer to grow a high class of barley, or to fatten his cattle to advantage. But he could adduce on this point the evidence of a Gentleman who had applied his mind to these matters, and who was well qualified to form a judgment on the subject. In the year 1851, when the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) brought forward his Motion for a reduction of one-half of the malt tax, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) expressed himself in the following terms:—

"No man had voted more steadily than him self for the total repeal of the malt tax; but its partial remission would neither diminish the expense of its collection nor remove the restrictions which it imposed upon agriculture or on brewing at home; in short, it would afford none of those indirect advantages which the agricultural community valued…ֵHe should much rather support the partial reduction of a Customs duty than of an Excise duty, because a reduction in the former case would lead to a diminution in the staff for collecting the Customs, while no such advantage could be obtained by the partial repeal of an excise tax."—[3 Hansard, cxvii. 912.]

Now if he (Mr. B. Osborne) were to speak for five hours—if he were making a Budget speech, and he did not say so sneeringly, for he had listened with great delight to the whole speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he could not adduce better reasons against the partial remission of the malt tax. He therefore claimed the vote of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on this occasion. He had, however, a still higher authority against the partial repeal of the malt tax—that of the late Sir Robert Peel, who summed up most compendiously the advantages and disadvantages of the tax in a speech which he made in 1835. In that speech the right hon. Baronet proved most conclusively that no tax was collected at so trifling a loss to the revenue, and he showed that 5,100,000l. of revenue was collected at an expense of only 150,000l., and he warned the House in the most emphatic language against tampering with that tax. He (Mr. B. Osborne) found that whenever the House had made any changes in the malt tax, they had always come back to its reim-position. In 1816 one-half of the malt tax was removed, and in 1819 it was again imposed. In March, 1821, the tax was repealed, and in the following April the vote was rescinded. In 1833, on one Friday the tax was repealed, and, on the following Friday that vote was rescinded. In 1833, Sir William Ingilby, who was then an amateur Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward a Budget, by which he proposed to repeal the malt duty; that Budget was accepted; but the House of Commons would not make up the deficiency which that repeal would occasion by laying on fresh taxes on houses and windows; on the contrary, they took off the taxes on houses and windows. They were put on again, but it remained for the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose to repeal half the malt tax and to make up that deficiency by laying a tax on houses and incomes. He thought that if the Committee adopted the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would enter upon a most mischievous course, for they would remove a tax which was collected at the least possible expense, which was onerous and oppressive to no one, which would not relieve the agricultural interest as a whole, and which would not cheapen beer to any great extent. They would, in fact, be repealing a tax in order to keep up a delusion that it would benefit the agricultural interest, while, in fact, it would only benefit the brewer and the publican. He must say he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have forsaken all his former schemes. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman had not moved for a Committee of the House to consider the peculiar burdens affecting land. What had become of the right hon. Gentleman's schemes for the growth of tobacco in Ireland? What had become of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for placing the establishment charges of the poor-rate on the Consolidated Fund? The right hon. Gentleman had given no reason the other night for not having stood by his colours, and for not bringing forward some Motion to place the establishment charges on the Consolidated Fund. If the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were good for anything in 1849 and 1850, why did he not bring forward some Motion on these subjects now? He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not promise the right hon. Gentleman his vote, but he would tell him this, having some interest connected with land—that he thought it would be a very fair subject of inquiry whether there were any peculiar burdens affecting land, in order that the question might be finally set at rest. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was bound, after all his promises, to have held out to the agricultural interest something more solid than this partial repeal of the malt tax, which was, in fact, no concession to the agricultural interest. He (Mr. B. Osborne) entirely dissented from the manner in which the income tax had been treated by the Government. He regarded that tax as most inquisitorial in its nature, and as extremely demoralising to the people of this country. It was only necessary to read the evidence of Mr. Pressly, and of the other witnesses examined before the Committee on the Income Tax, to be satisfied of its demoralising tendency. He must, however, deny the statement which had been made, that that tax had been imposed in order to maintain free trade. He understood, when the tax was brought forward by the late Sir Robert Peel, that it was proposed as a temporary expedient to make up a deficit. It was merely a temporary expedient voted for three years; but Parliament had since gone on voting it for three years at a time. It had been said that the public had become habituated to this tax; but, for his own part, he hoped the public would not become habituated to it, for he regarded it as a most odious tax, because it was both inquisitorial, and, therefore, demoralising. The Government were bound to state their views upon this subject, and as to the length of time for which this income tax was to be imposed; for they had at other times given very strong opinions upon it. Lord Derby said, on the 28th of February, 1851, in the other House, that "any surplus revenue that might arise should in the first instance be applied towards a reduction and final extinction of the income tax;" and that was followed up in the House of Commons by a Motion to that effect, made by the right hon. President of the India Board (Mr. Hemes), whom he (Mr. B. Osborne) was sorry not to have heard upon this Budget, for the right hon. Gentleman was an able financier, and his studied abstinence from assenting to anything in this Budget was remarkable; when he was appealed to, there had been nothing but a grave shrug and a very suspicious silence. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would not go into the distinction attempted to be drawn between precarious and certain income; he did not feel qualified to give any opinion as to the justice or the scientific accuracy of the discriminating duty proposed. That question had puzzled many-wise men. He remembered hearing the late Sir Robert Peel say, that if you determined to interfere in that way, you would have to do away with the tax altogether—that you never could make any approximation to a discrimination. He (Mr. B. Osborne) wished to look further into the subject before pronouncing upon that part of the scheme. He would proceed now to advert to some very remarkable opinions which he had heard uttered the other night by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), whom, however, he begged to assure, when ven- taring upon any criticism of those opinions, that no one more admired his literary talent; he read him with delight by day, and listened to him with pleasure by night; he was a man who must do honour to any assembly of which he was a member. But this must be said of that distinguished Member of Parliament and of the literary world, that he gave somewhat original reasons for his change of politics—a subject into which he (Mr. B. Osborne) should not have thought of entering, hut that the hon. Baronet had considered it necessary to make a defence, not only for the Ministers, hut for himself, when his conduct was not impugned. The hon. Baronet said he had always abided by the Liberal party till it was in a state of exhaustion, and then he left it. For what? Because he differed with them on the principle of free trade. And what did he do? Why, he joined the other party just as they had given up the principle for opposition to which he had left his friends! A singular reason for so eminent a Member of Parliament to give! Singular that he should have left the corpse of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London without consigning it to a decent funeral; but more singular that he should have left the noble Lord upon a difference on the principle of free trade, and joined the right hon. Gentleman opposite just as he had given up the principle for which the hon. Baronet forsook the noble Lord! He hoped the hon. Member had not forgotten his speeches for the ballot and triennial Parliaments, He hoped the air of Hertfordshire had not had that enervating effect upon him that he had forgotten his vigorous youth when representing Lincoln. But he chiefly referred to the hon. Baronet because he gave an extraordinary opinion, for him, the other night, in favour of direct taxation. Probably one of his books, by which he would live longest in the world, was that admirable work upon the institutions of this country—England and the English. He (Mr. B. Osborne) would advise every new Member immediately to get a copy of that work, because there was a chapter on the formation of a national party which, at this particular epoch, was well worthy of study, and in which he gave his opinion upon taxation; and here were his views on taxation. They were a little curious, as compared with his present views. This was in chapter 8. The hook was published in 1840:—

"I have little faith in the virtue of any com- mutation of taxes. I have studied the intricacies of our finance; I have examined the financial systems of other countries; and I cannot discover any very large fiscal benefit as the probable result of new combinations of taxation. House and window taxes are less just than property tax."

He then went on, in reference to direct taxation, of which he was now enamoured—

"An immense national debt renders direct taxation a dangerous experiment."

And here was a most extraordinary note; he believed it was only appended to the fourth edition. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: The book was written twenty years ago.] This was published in 1840, according to the date on the title page. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: Yes; but that is a recent edition. The book was originally published in 1833.] But had the hon. Member forsworn all his opinions of twenty years ago? Then he did not tell the whole secret the other night. He thought the hon. Member quitted his party only for free trade. But at any rate this note was worth listening to, and was most instructive. This was revised by the hon. Gentleman; it was the last edition he revised, and here was the editor's note; let county Members listen to this:—

"I firmly believe that if the national debtor be ever in danger, the fatal attack will come less from the Radicals than the country gentlemen, who are jealous of the fundholder or crippled with mortgages. The day after the repeal of half the malt tax (leaving a large deficit in the revenue) was carried, I asked one of its principal supporters, a popular and independent country gentleman"—

He (Mr. B. Osborne) believed it was the hon. Member for the North Riding, Mr. Cayley, and he had nothing to say against the account of him—

"how he proposed to repair the deficit? 'By a tax of 2 per cent,'quoth he, 'upon Master Fundholder.' 'If that does not suffice,' asked I. 'Why, then we must tax him 4 per cent,' was the honest rejoinder!"

The hon. Member, transplanted from the healthy atmosphere of Lincoln to the rather sickening and enervating soil of Hertfordshire, came down and said it was written twenty years ago. He (Mr. B. Osborne) supposed the hon. Member was now a convert to direct taxation, and very probably he would go upon "Master Fundholder." In this debate very little comparatively had been said upon the Irish part of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his address to the Buckinghamshire constituency, eloquently alluding to that country, said that "Ireland had irresistible claims." He (Mr. B. Osborne) was one of those who,; though representing an English constituency, but not from any paltry considerations merely of property in Ireland, would never shrink from saying that he thought, under the circumstances of Ireland, it was neither wise, beneficial, nor politic, to extend any additional taxation to that country. He would go further, and say, the "Consolidated Annuities" were a gross injustice to that country; and the labour rate, by which money was forced upon the people of that country, and no option was given them in the spending it, but their roads were broken up and the people demoralised was a bad and unjust system. He would say, further, that the potatoe famine ought always to be looked upon as an Imperial calamity, and Ireland no more charged for it than she would have been for the expense of a defence if a foreign invader had landed in Ireland; and till these accounts were put upon a juster footing, he, for one, would be no party to an increase of taxation upon Ireland. But, if the arguments of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Davison) last night were to have any weight, one could have little hope for Ireland. The hon. Member, who said he was no orator, but a simple man of business, gave as a reason for supporting the Budget, that there was a most popular Lord Lieutenant, a most amiable Chief Secretary, and most intelligent Law Officers. It was true enough; but was that any reason why the people of this country were to be loaded with the house tax? If he (Mr. B. Osborne) might respectfully address himself to the Irish Members, who he thought in the main always voted right, for the advance of great and liberal principles, he would say to them, "Beware how you inflame the mind of the English people by laying on a tax you refuse to bear yourselves." But the virtues of the Irish functionaries were no argument for laying on a tax, and would be very little consolation to the English householder when the collector called. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary wound up his most interesting and spirited speech by an elaborate panegyric upon his Colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Mr. B. Osborne) was not prepared to say that in many points of that panegyric he did not fully concur. He would grant all that was said as to the energy, the ability, the great powers of the right hon. Gentle-man—he would grant it ungrudgingly and fully. He thought the right hon; Gen- tleman had the ingenium velox, audacia perdita, sermo promptus. But he must take exception when the right hon. Home Secretary talked of him as the most bold and prudent financier the world had ever seen. With regard to finance, he (Mr. B. Osborne) was of opinion that the great majority of that House would incline to think that in financial projects "discretion was the better part of valour." But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, following in the footsteps of the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), that this Budget must be a most popular Budget, because there was such a cordial reception at Guildhall; and he quoted a passage from Lucretius, as he (Mr. B. Osborne) believed, but he was irresistibly reminded of a parallel case, as narrated by Buckingham to the Duke of Gloster, of what had occurred in the Guildhall when the Duke's claim to the Crown was urged there. Gentlemen would remember the quotation in Shakspeare:—

"When he had done, some followers of mine own, At lower end o' the hall, hurl'd up their caps, And some ten voices cried 'God save King Richard"

And thus I took the 'vantage of those few— 'Thanks, gentle citizens, and friends,' quoth I; 'This general applause and cheerful shout Argues your wisdom and your love to Richard.'"

The passages were somewhat parallel. He would venture to suggest to the right hon. Home Secretary, when he quoted the reception at Guildhall, that it was not very probable a set of well-to-do gentlemen, who were met to discuss the tender merits of turtle and venison, would be inclined to criticise with any severe eye the dry details of a financial project. No, those were not the classes they must quote as giving a cordial reception to their Budget. It was the industrious clerk, striving to support his family upon an income of not 150l. a year—it was the energetic mechanic just emerging into independence, whom they must ask what they thought of the Budget. Sure he was this Budget could never be popular with those classes in this country; and he called upon the Committee, in the name of those classes, to resist a Budget which was based at once upon tyranny and injustice.

said, that he should like to hear the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down state to the House the sources from which he thought the taxation of the country ought to be raised, and how the national credit was to be maintained? He had always been foremost in favour of the remission of indirect taxation. [Mr. OSBORNE: No!] Why, the hon. Gentleman had voted for the repeal of the corn laws, the abolition of the differential duties on sugar, and other indirect taxes. The hon. and gallant Member had declared himself disappointed with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and had characterised the Budget as meagre; but, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge were of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had aimed at too much, and that he would have done bettor if he had extended it over two years. In his (Mr. Alderman Thompson's) opinion, the Budget was a bold, statesmanlike, and wise measure, and deserved the confidence of the country. He would even go further, and say that, with the exception of certain objectors within the walls of Parliament, it had been received with very general acceptation. The hon. Member said the Budget was framed in a revengeful spirit. Did he mean to say that the working classes would receive no benefit from the reduction of the duty on tea, and from the reduction of the sugar duty in July? [Mr. OSBORNE: That is not in the Budget.] Well, but when he complained of the hardship upon those who occupied houses at rents between 10l. and 20l., it was proper to show that the occupiers of 10l. houses had obtained great relief from the course of legislation which had been adopted of late years, and that they had no cause of complaint whatever in being called upon to contribute towards a house tax. The tax, in point of fact, would fall upon the capital invested in houses, the rents of which were from 10l. to 12l., the returns from which were in general from 10 to 20 per cent; it appeared to him, therefore, that the proposed extension was rather a landlord's than a tenant's question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the North Riding had attempted to show the distinction between taxing houses and land; but land being worth thirty years' purchase, and houses only fifteen, it was clear that the latter produced double the income, and ought to pay a larger rate of taxation. He did not mean to say that he was prepared to vote for doubling the house tax, but that he was prepared to vote for extending it to the 10l. householders, both because of the large incomes which houses of that de- nomination produced, and also in consideration of the advantages which their inhabitants had derived from the diminution of taxation in other ways. With respect to the shipping interest, he felt persuaded that it would be found in every way beneficial. It had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that to have reduced the timber duties would have been a greater boon to the shipping interest than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to do. He was startled at the assertion; and, to test it, had only yesterday asked a man—not biassed, for he was a very good Whig—a man who was one of the largest shipowners and shipbuilders in England, and, consequently, in the world, what he thought on the subject. The reply was, that nothing in the world could be better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal; that the repeal of the timber duties would be a mere drop in the ocean compared to it. He (Mr. Alderman Thompson) then asked this gentleman what he should save by the repeal of the timber duties, in the building of one of his magnificent ships of 600 to 2,000 tons, and which cost about 20l. a ton? The answer was, "2s. 6d. a ton;" in other words, 2s. 6d. on the 20l. He would admit, however, that ships employed in the coasting trade would benefit to a greater extent; the saving in their case might be 7s. 6d. a ton. He thought, therefore, that this statement was a sufficient contradiction of the erroneous notions which existed in regard to the advantages the shipping interest would derive from a repeal of the timber duties. While giving his humble thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done, and promised to do, with regard to pilotage and the manning of the mercantile marine, there was another point, not touched upon, but more important than any alluded to, as regarded the commerce of this country—that was, the question of salvage by the Royal Navy. That bad been a grievance ever since be had been in business, and he had no hesitation in saying that the present system operated most severely and unjustly against the shipowner. He would give one or two instances of its unfair pressure, for the purpose of proving his statement. He had held the office of chairman at Lloyd's, and recollected a case which, at the time, attracted the attention of the whole commercial community, and which he would state now to the Committee. Her Majesty's frigate Thetis was on the coast of South America in 1830, and to accommodate the merchants she went from port to port to collect specie. On the 4th of December she sailed from Rio, and on the 5th ran foul of a reef of rocks off Cape Frio, and was lost. Her preceding captain had been unfortunately drowned, and the Admiral on the station had appointed an officer to command her. A court-martial was summoned, and it found that the officer in command had not shown sufficient care and skill in the navigation of his vessel. Meanwhile Admiral Baker sent three sloops of war to see what they could get from the wreck, and to recover as much as possible of the specie. Originally the Thetis had on board about 800,000 dollars belonging to various English merchants, and worth, in our money, some 200,000l.; of this about 150,000l. was recovered. They should mark what followed. The Navy, the Admiral, and the captain who was appointed for this particular duty, first claimed salvage—claimed it under the circumstances already stated—that the ship, according to the finding of the court-martial, had been lost for want of sufficient skill in its commanding officer. After much litigation, the matter ended in this way—the officers of the Navy obtained 29,000l.; 13,800l. was claimed by the Admiral for the use of the three sloops, for interest, and for seamen's wages; and there was a bill of 7,000l. for stores. The conclusion therefore was, that within a trifle of 50,000l. was claimed and paid in this case on account of salvage. He said these were charges on the commerce and shipping of this country which were unendurable, and which did not exist in any other country. Take another ease. A British merchant vessel, the Rosalie, sailed out of the port of Monte Video. About eight hours afterwards the captain discovered that she was on fire. He put about ship and sailed back; but the wind was adverse, and he was obliged to take to his boats. He went to the British consul at Monte Video and communicated the disaster to him, and the consul thereupon immediately gave him a letter of introduction to the captain of the Locust, a Government steamer. The Locust proceeded to the ship which was on fire; but in bringing her into port both ships got on shore, and would have been wrecked but for the interference of the Brazilian Admiral. The captain of the British ship went to the Brazilian Admiral, and asked him what claim be had to make for saving his ship. His reply was, "None whatever; it gives me great satisfaction to have been able to serve the vessel of a friendly Power in distress." But, notwithstanding that generous declaration, the course adopted by the captain of the Locust was very different. He immediately placed a distringas on the ship and cargo for salvage, for which he claimed 3,000l. Yet such abuses went on year by year without being prevented or reformed. He was confident that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty would readily be instrumental in carrying out measures for the advantage of the mercantile marine. Wherever there was hazard of life—wherever efforts must be made to save life— the officers of the British Navy ought to be rewarded. The system that existed was one which had been allowed to endure too long. With regard to that part of the Budget which had reference to the sugar colonies, though they would probably receive relief to the extent probably of 1s. 6d. per cwt. by the facility proposed to be given for refining sugar in bond, yet he must own that when he heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the course of legislation which had been observed towards the Colonies was unjust, he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would have proposed some measure for their relief. He did hope this, because, though he admitted that for the last three years there had been an increase of British plantation sugar, he believed that had been owing to the quantity of cane planted in 1851, when there was a differential duty of 7s. per cwt. He was afraid that in the next two years, when the duties on British and foreign-grown sugar would become equalised, it would be found that the West Indian colonies would fall off greatly in respect of production. He deprecated the mode in which allusion had been made to the circumstances that Parliament had granted half a million of money to be lent to proprietors in the West Indies, and that they had not taken half of it. He felt that the course those proprietors had taken had been suggested by the most honourable motives; and that, but for their being conscious of their inability to fulfil the engagements which a loan implied, they would have availed themselves of the grant to a greater extent than they had. As regarded the proposed reduction of the duty on tea, independently of other considerations, he had always been apprehensive that if we continued a duty upon that article of something like 240 per cent, whilst China was admitting our manufactures at 5 per cent, and America, which was the most importing country in point of quantity, admitting tea from China free of duty, the time would come when the Chinese Government would say, "We charge you 5 per cent only on your cotton, an article of very great consumption in China, and in which the Americans now carry on an almost successful competition with you, yet you will not admit our tea, which is almost the only article we send you, except at this exorbitant duty. We certainly shall not any longer allow your goods to come into our country at 5 per cent, while we are paying upwards of 100."That this would he the language of the Chinese had long been his apprehension, an apprehension which this measure, he was glad to say, removed; and therefore he gave his entire approval to this proposition. He would next refer to the Income Tax; and here he must say he admired the courage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had ventured upon a much-needed modification, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would successfully carry out. Coming, then, to the very severe censures of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) and for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), as to the extension of the income tax to funded property in Ireland, he would refer them to the Act of Parliament, which might perhaps throw some light upon the subject; he would remind them that the debt was a debt of the United Kingdom, not of England only, nor of Ireland only. By an Act passed in the 5th Geo. IV. cap. 35, sec. 6, for the purpose of facilitating the transfer of stock from England to Ireland, or vice versâ, it was enacted that, "each of the several stocks should be deemed, reputed, and taken to be one capital or joint-stock." And how did this operate? The right hon. Gentleman said they must look what a cruelty it was to the poor shopkeeper in Dublin who had perhaps a sum of 50l. a year in the Irish funds to pay the income tax on that amount. But the right hon. Gentleman made this mistake—it was not the poor shopkeeper, nor the poor farmer or landowner in Ireland who were the stockholders; it was the banking interest who were the stockowners, the joint-stock banks, carried on not by Irish but by English capital, and making large profits. Was it right they should escape the tax on property? He had been investigating the nature of the transactions between England and Ireland in stocks since the imposition of the income tax in 1842, and he found that from England to Ireland there had been transferred 16,590,927l.; from Ireland to England during the same period, the amount of stock transferred had been 10,849,836l.; Ireland had therefore a balance in her favour of 6,000,000l., which did not pay duty at all. But if he went to the terminable annuities, where the tax was about fifteen or sixteen per cent, the Irish had no competition; in 1842 they amounted to between 700l. and 800l., and now to 120,839l. Was this their justice to Ireland? It was not all. He found that about a fortnight before the stocks were closed, there was an enormous transfer of funded property to Ireland, and that as soon as the dividend was paid in Ireland, it was all sent back again. There was no expense attending the transfer, because the Act said this stock should be transferred without any charge. If he held 10,000l. Consols in the English funds, and wished to transfer it to the Irish, all he had to do was to get a certificate from the Accountant General, on presentation of which at the Bank of England they gave an order on the Bank of Ireland to raise 10,000l. Consols, and cancelled those which he held in the English funds. That was a very simple and convenient operation; he admired it very much; but this facility was liable to abuse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax bade the Irish Members, the other night, take care of this income tax, warning them that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to get the point of the wedge in as a preliminary to driving it home. The hon. Member for Marylebone not only put it in, but wished to drive it home. But although he entirely approved of the extension of the income tax to Ireland, he did not go along with those who wished to extend it to Ireland generally. He could not forget the hardships which that country had endured, and the great sacrifices of property which the Irish had been obliged to make under the Encumbered Estates Act. And though he hoped the time was not distant when Ireland might bear a fair proportion of the national burdens, he contended that that time had not yet come. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) characterise the Budget as one that tampered with the national credit. Look at the best indicator. How much had the premium upon Exchequer Bills fallen since this Budget had been introduced? How much per cent had Consols fallen? That was the very best answer to the right hon. Gentleman's objections. With regard to the application of the 400,000l. to be received from the repayment of loans, he contended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right. What was that fund? It was the difference in the rate of interest between borrowing and lending. Upon that transaction the country had made a profit of 360,000l. He should treat it the same in any private transaction of his own. If he borrowed a fixed sum of money at 2 per cent, and employed it at 4, he gained 2 per cent, and he should consider the difference available capital.

said, the hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that he disapproved of the proposal of the Government as regarded the relief of the shipping interests. He must refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, the previous night, said he was glad to find he entirely approved of it.

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to have stated that he thought a removal of the timber duties would have been more beneficial to the shipping interest.

said, it was not his intention to follow his hon. Friend who had just sat down, through all the topics upon which he had touched. The real question for the consideration of the Committee now, was the first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to double the house tax; and until that evening, he had certainly expected that that was the point which was to be decided in the first instance. It seemed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel inclined to take issue on that question, and that he now wished the House to limit that issue to a very narrow compass, namely, that the area of taxation shall be extended. That was not the question. The question was, should the house tax be doubled, for the purpose of repealing the malt duty? The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual versatility of purpose, tried to evade his first propositions as to the house tax, and was desirous of confining the issue, and taking the question as to whether the area should be extended. But that was too limited a ques- tion to discuss; and he (Sir B. Hall) would hold the right hon. Gentleman to the positive issue upon which, only two days since, the Minister stated he would stake the existence of his Cabinet. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had given it as his opinion, that although the Opposition took some exceptions to the Budget, yet as they made some admissions, they should vote for the Budget as a whole, and move amendments at subsequent periods. This would be a very fair course if the exceptions were not paramount to the admissions, and the latter were only of minor importance; but such was not the case, and the whole scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based upon a proposition (that of doubling the house tax), so objectionable that he (Sir B. Hall) could not for one moment assent to it. Connected as he was with a large house constituency, he would beg leave to detain the House for a short time. He would endeavour to show that the doubling of the house tax was unjust; that the distinction made between the tenant-farmer and the tradesman was most unfair, and ought not to be carried out; and that the whole scheme was directed against the inhabitants of towns. He was prepared to show that as regarded the farmers, they would, as compared with the inhabitants of towns, be greatly benefited by the alteration of the present Budget. But before he entered upon these several points, he must notice an observation which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for the City of Durham (Lord A. Vane), who had said, that if any unpopularity attached to this house tax, it would be owing to himself (Sir B. Hall), who had organised his battalions against this tax. That statement was without foundation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on Friday night, spoke of the intelligence of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He concurred in that view of the right hon. Gentleman as to their intelligence, and that intelligence, he submitted, would learn them to discern whether a proposed tax was just or unjust; and if the latter, they would naturally meet together to oppose its imposition, and if they did so it was the duty of their representatives to give them all the assistance in their power. Their course was like that taken in the pro-corn-law agitation. Noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen who now denounced agitation by others, collected large masses of the people to discuss their views. The only distinction between the course of that agitation and the present was, that their (Sir B. Hall's) agitation was for a good object, while their opponents was the reverse. The fact was, the cause of their opponents was a bad one, and it broke down. But their case was a good one, and it would succeed. And whether the Ministers succeeded in carrying their proposition on that subject or not that night, they might rely upon it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.Goul-burn) had told them, the tax would be so unpopular that they would have the same number of petitions against it on the table of the House as in 1833 and 1834, and they would be ultimately obliged to abandon it altogether. His noble Friend the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Viscount Jocelyn), said that this was not a question of the house tax. He agreed with his noble Friend that this was not so much the question of a new house tax as it was a question of whether they should double the tax that existed. He (Sir B. Hall) did not deny that houses ought to be taxed as property. There could be no doubt of that. But if they went beyound that then taxation became unequal, and it must break down. They had agreed with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to com-promise the imposition of a house tax of a smaller amount to get rid of the window duties, and they did not intend to have that arrangement broken through. By that arrangement the householders had yielded a great deal, and he wished to know why the inhabitants of towns were to be taxed more than the people in the country. This was now to he effected by a partial system of taxation. According to the present system if a person took a property from a landowner that was subject to a property tax, he then built a house upon it, and that was taxed; not merely to property tax on the rent paid to the landlord, and which might be deducted by the ten-ant, but to income tax, and also to 6d. in the pound on shops, and 9d. on dwelling-houses; and if he died, the personalty was also taxed. It was now proposed, without any good cause, to increase that taxation. Now, with respect to direct taxation, he was in favour of that so far as it could be carried out fairly, and he believed that a great deal of the revenue of the country ought to be collected that way; but at the same time they should remember this, that if they rendered it partial and unjust, they would render it odious and unpopular, and it would be put a stop to. Why should there be any difference between tenant-farmers and the tradesmen in towns? The former lived in the country, and at a cheaper rate; but otherwise their position was precisely similar, and the one should be exempted from no tax which the other was obliged to pay. Another exemption in favour of the tenant-farmer, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to effect was, that he was liable to be taxed for only one-third his rent, and if he found that he had not made an amount of profit equal to one-third his rent, he was allowed to appeal. But the tradesman must undergo all the annoyance of the inquisitorial system, of the income-tax commissioner, and whether he made out one-third his rent or not, he had no appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had alluded to what had taken place at a meeting of his (Sir B. Hall's) constituents, and to what he had said at that meeting. He did not say that he objected to a house tax in the shape of a property tax, but he said, "Why should they stop at 10l.? This is simply the reason, because if they go below 10l., they must go into the agricultural districts, and thus eventually come to tax the landlords themselves. This, I think, is the reason why the Government proposed to stop at 10l."But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he had made that proposition, had said, in speaking of the inhabitants of the metropolis, that he "was surprised that they objected to this tax." He said, that "the repeal of the window tax was not made on account of the pressure of taxation, or because it was an oppressive or vicious tax; but that it should be repealed on sanatory grounds." "That plea was admitted, and the tax repealed." He (Sir B. Hall) was surprised to hear this statement from the right hon. Gentleman, not only because it was wholly unfounded, but because the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it was so. If anybody knew it, the right hon. Gentleman should have known that the window tax was an unpopular tax in the metropolis, for he himself was one of the loudest declaimers against it, and he issued addresses in which he had said that it ought to be immediately repealed. That had been one of the right hon. Gentleman's earliest opinions with regard to political subjects; and the question of sana- tory reform had not been considered with reference to the window tax till within the last few years. Above twenty years ago, when he (Sir B. Hall) had first the honour of a seat in that House, the question of the window tax was considered by the inhabitants of the metropolis as a vexatious impost, which they ought not to be called on to pay. But the right hon. Gentleman, in order to reconcile them to the imposition of a double house tax, had ordered a paper to be printed [No. 54: of this Session, printed on the 6th instant], in which a return is given of the number of houses assessed in house duty in 1852, showing the amount recived thereon, the amount of the window tax levied in 1851, and the difference caused by the substitution of a house tax for the window tax. If anything would make the inhabitants dissatisfied with the proposed house tax, it was an analysis of this return. Not an atom of benefit would be derived by the larger or even by the smaller towns, by the proposed change; and this, he (Sir B. Hall) would make much more manifest if he obtained the returns he would move for on Thursday next. The only town given in the return of the right hon. Gentleman, was the City of London. How would the alteration of the duties fall upon that portion of the metropolis? The house duty, according to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would yield 73,110l. The window tax yielded 61,300l. There would thus be an increase of 11,810l. But if they went farther, and compared the tax which was paid in 1851 with the tax which was proposed for 1853, and compared that to be paid by towns with that to be paid by counties, he would be able to show that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition was most unjust towards the inhabitants of towns, and was a completely partial mode of taxation. It had been impossible for him to get the returns for all towns; but he had been able to inform himself of the amount of taxes paid for windows, and to be paid for houses in the parishes of St. Pancras, Westminster, and Marylebone, and the following was a comparison of what they would have to pay for the house tax in 1853, with what they paid for the window tax in 1851. He (Sir B. Hall) would state these sums to the House, and thus he would show how the towns would be overtaxed, and how agricultural counties, which in 1851 paid almost precisely the same amount of window tax would be relieved:—

said, he wished to accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the whole Budget as a financial scheme of taxation, and, in that view of it, he gave his cordial consent to the principles which appeared to him to be involved in the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman. The reductions proposed in favour of the shipping interest, with which he was connected through his constituents, were universally admitted to be reasonable and just. With regard to the question before them, he thought the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more proper than if he had made any attempt to reverse the commercial policy which had been adopted by the country. For he was now convinced that, under the altered circumstances of the country, the question of free trade had changed in its bearing; and, there fore, although a certain amount of pressure had fallen by the change on some classes, the evils that would arise from reversing that policy would exceed those which were now felt by any portion of the community. He also approved of the remission of the tea duties, because it would be attended with great good, and in the event, it was to be hoped, could not very much diminish the revenue. Although the reduction of the duty on malt would not afford any benefit to the J agricultural interest in that part of the country with which he was connected, he thought he should be acting a selfish part if he refused to entertain a proposition which in so many parts of the country was deemed to be of considerable importance, He viewed the reduction of this duty with leas cordiality, because he did not see that the producers, whatever of indirect gain and advantage might arise to them, would be directly benefited by it. Neither did he think it would be of any great advantage to the consumer; and if not to the consumer, then it cut both ways, for I the producer could not hope to gain. He was of opinion that reductions in the duty of other articles would have been attended with greater advantage to the whole of the people. It was perfectly obvious, from the moment free trade was adopted by that House, that the deficiency created in the revenue by the remission of indirect taxation must be met in some way, and the only remaining mode was by direct taxation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was justified in imposing a reasonable equivalent of direct taxation for the indirect taxation remitted. When he had arrived at this point, however, he shrank from going the length of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he now felt himself greatly released from the difficulty under which he laboured, by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening. For although he desired to support the Government, yet, entertaining the views that he held, if the right hon. Gentleman were to impose a larger amount of direct taxation than was a fair equivalent to the reductions made in the other parts of the Budget, he should have been unable to give his consent to that increase of taxation. He felt, therefore, relieved from the consideration of the question as regarded the increase of taxation, and whether the doubling of the house tax was or was not more than a fair equivalent for what his constituents and the nation at large would derive from other portions of the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said early in the evening that he placed this Resolution upon the paper with a view of testing the opinion of the Committee with regard to the question of increasing the area of direct taxation. He (Sir J. Duckworth) was glad to be able to give his support to that principle. But it was a still more important imperial question to consider that, in coming to vote upon this question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had invited them to regard that vote as a vote of confidence in the Government, and not as a mere question of the details of the Budget. Though he (Sir J. Duckworth) confessed that he thought the class amongst which his constituents ranked would have been treated unjustly by so large an increase of taxation as that proposed, yet as he understood that that increase of taxation was not definitely affirmed by the Resolution now before the Committee, but that, on the contrary, it would be open to them hereafter to discuss the extent to which it should go; he was prepared to give his vote in favour of maintaining the Government in the position which they now occupied, and which, he believed, was the real question which he was called upon to decide. He did so in a confident belief that the result would be—that justice would he done to all classes of the community—to those whom he had the honour to represent, no less than to those whom other hon. Members represented. On these grounds he would be prepared to give his vote in favour of the Resolution. MR. HUME said, that he was anxious to offer some observations to the Committee on two specific grounds: first, because had it not been for his Motion limiting the duration of the Income tax to one year, they should not have had the present discussion; and, secondly, because he had given notice of his intention to submit certain Resolutions with regard to that tax. Before proceeding to speak of the Budget, he would beg to submit to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in consequence of what had fallen from him at an earlier period of the evening, the question before them was not entirely altered, and whether it would not be better to withdraw the Resolution and modify it in such a manner that they might be able to come to a clear understanding on the subject, and know what was the point on which they were to divide. He had on a former occaston proposed to increase the area of the house tax to 10l. houses, and upon that point there was no difference of opinion between himself and the right hon. Gentleman. Why, then, did he oppose this Resolution? Because it increased the amount of the tax besides extending the area; and as there was a surplus revenue he did not think that any cause had been made out for an increase of taxation. He hoped that, before a division, the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation as to what the principle of the Resolution really was; for at present it would puzzle any man, in or out of the House, to know what was the subject of debate, and what they wanted to arrive at. If the point involved in the Resolution was merely the question of the extent of the area of direct taxation, he was perfectly ready to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer his vote, and he saw no reason why the Committee might not he unanimous. With regard to the Budget as a whole, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a bold though not very judicious course. The declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that his Budget was to be a free-trade Budget, and was to put at rest for ever the disputes of parties, appeared to him (Mr. Hume) of great importance, if they could only secure its realisation. There were some right and some wrong proposals in the Budget, which he would proceed to point out; but he must say, first of all, that he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt fairly with the shipping, colonial, and agricultural interests. He desired to give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for the manner in which he had disposed of those interests. If there was one branch of reform which this country was bound to look to more than another, it was that relating to the shipping interest. Ever since a Committee had sat upon the subject in 1823, he (Mr. Hume) had not ceased to point out the injustice done to our mercantile marine; and if the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the reforms he had proposed, he would be acting in a manner creditable to himself and advantageous to the country. There was not a shipowner in the country who did not consider what were called "passing tolls" as a species of robbery; and he (Mr. Hume) cordially approved of the proposal to abolish them. With regard to pilotage and ballasting, the right hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty; they depended altogether on the Trinity House, which would not stand in the way of reform. He besought the Government to settle speedily the question of enlistment at sea; great hardship and injustice resulted from the present regulations on that subject, and he could even mention cases in which ships had been lost owing to this cause. He was satisfied that the manning clause was one of the most mischievous enactments in existence, and the efforts which seamen were now making against it deserved immediate attention. With regard to the question of salvage, perhaps the Committee were not aware that both the French and the American Governments had ordered that no ship belonging to the navies of those two countries should ever call for one single shilling for assistance rendered to merchant ships; and the captains in those services were directed to afford assistance, not only to their own mercantile marine, but to that of other nations. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration he had effected here. We had at the present time no fewer than 4,400,000 tons of shipping, and no want of seamen could possibly arise so long as there was no other country in the world which had so many ships as we had. He, for one, should never be satisfied until British ships were free from lighthouse and all other dues; and when they could enter and leave all harbours freely, the number of ships in our mercantile marine would be greatly increased. There was no reason, in his humble opinion, why a mercantile ship should have to pay light-dues which were not paid by the ships of Her Majesty's Navy; and by removing this charge, the Legislature would enable shipowners to lower their freights, and thus to enter into competition with the whole world. The right hon. Gentleman had also done well in conferring a boon upon the sugar colonies, and it now only remained for him to devise means for increasing the amount of labour in those colonics. Our colonial possessions had suffered much by our legislation, and they now deserved to be considered in the most favourable light; money, indeed, could not be lent to them, but there were many arrangements by which they might be benefited, especially by allowing them the free management of their own affairs. The colonies had hitherto hung to us like leeches, drawing our money from us, but it was absolutely necessary to let them drop off from us one by one, and assume the management of their own concerns. The arrangement with regard to refining sugar in bond would be beneficial to the colonies, and would be no loss to this country. He only wished the right hon. Gentleman would contrive some means for conveying labour to the colonies; otherwise they would never be able to pay the interest upon their loans. Having been ruined by imperial legislation, they ought to be considered. With regard to the general policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Hume) could not say that the right hon. Gentleman had done what he ought to have done. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) said that free trade ought to be carried out. Yet 233 manufactured articles still bore protective duties, and about 42 articles connected with agriculture. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolish these protective duties? He need not then have added to the taxation of the country at all. The abolition of half the malt tax was not enough. It ought to be abolished altogether. The public might then get rid of the monopoly of the brewer, if the licensing system were also abolished. He should be prepared to show at some other time that socially, morally, and physically it was necessary to bring back the people from the use of ardent spirits, to which they had been driven by the high price of malt. These 233 articles only produced 434,000l. The duty on cheese only brought 85,000l. to the revenue, and that upon butter 158,000l. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cleared off all these duties it would have been a great honour to him, and would have been received with acclamations by the country. With regard to the income tax, in proposing to draw a distinction between incomes from trades and professions, and incomes from realised property, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was taking certainly a bold step, because it was opposed by both of the two previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, but yet a step highly consistent with all the evidence adduced before the Committee on the Income Tax, and one in which the feeling and the good sense of the whole community would go along with him. The country was in favour of direct taxation, and only wished to see it divested of its injustice and its partiality. Unless all were made to pay according to their ability, the system amounted to confiscation as regarded those who were selected to bear the burden. The ability of every person should be determined by the property which he had, that property to be estimated at its market value, and then there would be no difficulty in apportioning the incidence. Let there be an entirely separate schedule for incomes from trades and professions; and he, for one, could not see why the clergyman should be assessed on a higher scale than the members of any other profession. This would bring the income and property tax to a state of at once the greatest fairness and the greatest simplicity. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have dealt with the assessed taxes, which were a great burden upon the industry of the country; for there could be no greater mistake than to suppose that a tax on carriages and servants only affected the rich. The revenue of the country for the year ending April 5, 1852, amounted to 52,468,000l.; and looking at the different heads into which it was divided, it would be found that 39½ per cent of the whole revenue was derived from the Customs, and another 27½ per cent from the Excise; making 67 per cent of the entire revenue of the country derivable from the two heads of Customs and Excise alone; and it must be borne in mind that the greater portion of that 67 per cent was raised from the industrious classes. In addition to this, 3,500,000l. of the income tax was raised from trades and professions, showing that these classes were unfairly taxed as compared with the propertied classes. Why, the property of the country, looking at its entire amount, now contributed but a small modicum of the revenue of the country. The land in 1814 and 1815 bore 64 per cent of the whole property tax that was then raised; but in 1848 its proportion was reduced to as low as 34 per cent. This arose in a great measure from the extensive introduction of railways, canals, factories, &c, which had altered the proportion that the land bore to the rest of the property of the country. Well, he maintained that by a direct tax properly assessed on the whole of the realised property of the country, they might easily raise a sum of 8,000,000l. to the revenue; and he believed that a tax of less than five per cent on the whole property of the country would raise an amount that would be sufficient to enable them to dispense altogether with the assessed and the excise taxes. With regard to the exemption of incomes from property under 50l. a year, he (Mr. Hume) considered there ought to be no exemptions at all; the tax ought to he levied upon the lowest, amount of; income derived from property, because all the evidence taken be-fore the Committee showed that the existing 150l. limitation had been the cause of the greatest frauds upon the revenue; and all the authorities said that if the tax was to be continued it ought to be imposed on all without any exemptions. In assessing property to the tax, he certainly thought a deduction ought to be made for repairs, in order that the capital—the subject of tax-ation—should be left intact; and with regard to houses, it would not be fair to tax them on the same scale as other descriptions of property, because house property was only worth seventeen or eighteen years' purchase. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look further into the subject of the income tax, and be induced to go further than he now intended to do in the same direction. If he did so, he (Mr. Hume) should be glad to give him every assistance in carrying out his measures. He now came to the house tax; and that he must say he considered to be one of the worst taxes that could be levied. If anything had been a greater reflection than another upon the rich and wealthy classes of this country, it was the numbers of wretched hovels that were to be seen in close proximity to our stately mansions. This evil, however, had been in the course of gradual extinction. In Liverpool alone 27,000 cellars had been given up, as wholly unfit for human habitation. The taxes on bricks, timber, and glass had been reduced, and model cottages and lodging-houses established to improve the dwellings of the working classes; but the effect of this house tax must be to check these improvements. He held that the house tax, as at present levied, was most unequal and unjust, because it was assessed according to the amount of the rental, and it was well known that rent absorbed a greater proportion of the income of people of small means than of the income, of the rich; and the consequence was, that the payers of the tax were not charged according to their ability to contribute; and the result of the proposal to extend and double the house tax would be that the occupier of a house at 20l. rent would have to pay 1½ per cent on his income, estimating his income at 100l. a year the, occupier of a house at a rent of 100l would have to pay ¾ per cent on an income of 1,000l, a year; and the man worth 10,000l. a year, and renting, a house at 1,000l., would only have to pay ⅜ per cent on his income. That, he thought, was a most unequal and unjust mode of assessment, placing the heaviest burden on the shoulders that were least able to bear it, and relieving the millionaire from contributing according to the extent of his ability, as he should be required to do. He (Mr. Hume) would prefer that they should abolish the house tax altogether, and add 1 per cent to the property tax instead. Looking at the altered position of the country, and the fact that the manufactures of the country now paid 30 per cent more than the land paid between thirty and forty years ago, England must now depend no longer, as it had hitherto done, upon the land for its support, but must depend upon its manufactures and its commerce; and to render these manufactures and that commerce as profitable as possible, and to enable them successfully to meet the competition of the United States of America and their other rivals, we ought to relieve them from the burden of indirect taxation, and to revert to a more complete system of equitably-adjusted direct taxation. He believed that we might raise one-fourth, and even one-third, of the entire revenue of the country from a tax upon property; and he wished to convince the landed proprietors that the value of their land was owing to the manufactures and commerce of the country. In conclusion, he would only add that he should vote against any increase to the taxation of the country, and also against the proposed appropriation of the 400,000l. from the Loan Commission Fund, which he considered a robbery.

said, that being the representative of a large and important agricultural constituency, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on the question before the House. He was not about to canvas the abstract merits of direct and indirect taxation, but would confine himself to the consideration of the effect of the measures proposed in the Budget upon the various interests of the country. He believed the first portion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's financial statement relating to the relief of the shipping and the West Indian interests, as well as that relating to the reduction of the tea duty, had been received with general satisfaction throughout the country; and, for himself, he fully participated in the general feeling, But there was another question of infinitely greater importance, on which the country had expressed a no less unequivocal opinion, but to which grave objections had been raised in that House; he meant the proposed modification of the income tax, and the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman intended to draw between permanent and precarious incomes. Popular opinion, in this instance, was on the side of the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought it would not be difficult to show that the proposition had the sanction and authority of those recorded opinions which were worthy the attentive consideration of the Committee. When the income tax was first proposed, there had been no disposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen to modifications of it, nor had they scrupled to pronounce a system which raised the same amount from precarious incomes and from real property as unequal, unjust, and unwise. The first authority that he would quote was the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), who had told them the reason why Mr. Pitt made no distinction between realised and precarious incomes. In 1842 the noble Lord said—

"He thought Mr. Pitt was perfectly justified in making no such distinction, because at the same time the nation was engaged in a struggle for its very existence. There were many to whom, under the circumstances, he acknowledged that the tax ought not to apply; but as the nation was then engaged in a most arduous and perilous struggle, he said that wherever he found income he took the tax."—[ 3 Hansard, lxi. 900.]

He found that in 1848 the noble Lord still entertained the same opinion. In one of the debates which took place during that Session, the noble Lord said—

"They had the means of modifying the income tax, so as to make it press with less injustice and severity on those whose precarious incomes brought them within its scope."

Another very high authority in that House, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), asked—

"If it was desirable to impose a tax on property, why not attempt to arrive at some equitable and reasonable mode of assessing it? He was opposed to the inequality and injustice of the present system of assessment."

Another right hon. Gentleman, who possessed great weight in that House, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. T. Baring), asked—

"Was it a just or equal tax? Was it fair that those who were in occupation of property should pay in the same proportion as those who obtained their annual incomes by their own exertions? His own opinion was that no tax could be devised which would operate more unequally, more unjustly, and more oppressively."

He could only add that he cordially par- ticipated in the views contained in the extracts he had quoted. He should certainly vote for the proposed modification of the income tax, not only because he believed it was in accordance with the general feeling of the people of England, but also because he believed it was founded on principles of equity and justice. He next came to the consideration of two other important taxes, which had been much dwelt on in the course of this debate—he meant the malt tax and the house tax. He regretted that in the discussion of these two taxes attempts had been made by some hon. Members opposite to raise up an agitation of the towns against the country, setting the interests of one part of the community in opposition to those of the other. The hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) had not scrupled to assert that the only object for which the repeal of the malt tax was proposed was to afford compensation to the agricultural interest. He had even gone further, and said, if he heard him right, that the proposed extension of the house tax might almost be considered as an act of revenge against the 10l. electors. Now, he (Sir E. Dering) had no hesitation in saying that he thought the utterance of such extreme opinions was very much to be deprecated, because they were at variance with that spirit of moderation and mutual forbearance with which those great questions ought to be discussed, if it was their wish to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. With the leave of the House he would now inquire whether the malt tax was to be considered in the light of compensation to the agricultural interests, and whether the house tax should be deemed an act of revenge?? If the remission of one-half the duty on malt had been offered to the agriculturists as a compensation for those burdens to which they had been unduly subjected, he said he was perfectly certain, speaking on behalf of the agriculturists, that they would have repudiated any such offer as that as totally unworthy of their serious consideration. He would go a step further, and say that, except in special cases, he thought the repeal of half the malt tax would be of very little benefit to the farmer. The barley grower might very likely derive some advantage from it; but as regarded the wheat lands, he thought very little or no benefit would be derived, at least compared with the enormous amount of revenue that would be sacrificed by it. It appeared to him there was only one general advantage which could be gained by the repeal of one-half the malt tax, as stated last night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E, Ball), and that it was by inserting the wedge they might hope to obtain at a subsequent period that which would be the enormous boon to both producer and consumer, the total and entire repeal of that obnoxious impost. There was another ground on which he thought some possible benefit might arise. If the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were right, in concluding that a great increase would take place in the consumption of malt from the remission of the duty, then he thought some incidental advantage might possibly be derived by the hop-growers from an increased demand for bops. On these grounds, the one general the other special, and looking to the prospective advantage to be expected, rather than to the partial and immediate benefit, he should certainly give his support to the proposal for the reduction of the malt tax. With respect to the proposed remission of half the duty on hops, he could hardly believe there was any serious intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to continue an army of excisemen merely for the purpose of levying the insignificant amount of 150,000l. This was so contrary to every sound financial principle that he hoped very sincerely the right hon. Gentleman on more mature reflection would not fail to adopt the conclusion which must suggest itself to every one's mind, that if any alteration was to be made, there was but one reasonable mode of dealing with this duty—that of getting rid of it altogether. He now came to the consideration of that most unpopular impost, which had created so much division of opinion in the House, the house tax. He was much struck the other night with the observations made by the right hon. Baronet the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appeared to him to tell in favour of the Ministerial plan. The right hon. Baronet pointed out that by it the House was about to deal with classes who up to that moment had been nearly exempt from taxation. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: Exempt from direct taxation.] Well, the question occurred to him, as it must to every other Gentleman in that House, why should that class which had benefited to the full as much as any other in this country by late legislative measures, be exempted; why should it be the only class in this country exempted from paying its fair share of taxation. It was a very numerous class: they heard the other night that the 10l. householders amounted to no less a number than 350,000, and it was known that they exercised a very powerful influence over the deliberations of that House; therefore he saw no reason in justice why they should be placed on a different footing from all other classes of the community. Recollect that out of 3,500,000 inhabited houses in this country, 3,100,000 were totally exempt from the tax; they had the authority of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when proposing his house tax, that the whole inhabited house duty was paid by 400,000 houses only. Well then, all he could say was, that he was surprised that such a state of things should exist— it was quite time that such an anomaly should be done away with. He admitted there was an appearance of hardship in imposing in one and the same year two direct taxes on persons who up to this moment had not been subject to this species of taxation. That might be a good plea for modifying the tax, and in all probability some graduated scale might be proposed for the consideration of the Committee. Reserving to himself the power of voting such a plan, he thought a very great principle was involved in extending the area of the tax, and he should record his vote with great satisfaction in favour of the Resolution. Another point on which he wished to say a word regarded that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's financial scheme which related to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department argued, by the Act 5 & 6 Vict, the Irish and English fundholder were placed precisely on the same footing; and that it was by a subsequent section—the 88th—that residents in Ireland were exempted from payment of the income tax, thus furnishing an inducement to persons of moderate means to reside there. By the adoption of this argument the right hon. Gentleman had taken up a position perfectly untenable. Let him ask, what was the present state of Ireland? Were hon. Gentlemen prepared or not to admit that at the present moment distress existed in Ireland? If distress did exist, he asked whether it was "wise, just, or beneficial" to take away from the small fundholder in Ireland the only inducement he had to live and spend his money in that country? If there Was no distress existing in Ireland, then he asked upon what principle of justice could they contend that it was right to exempt the land of Ireland, and place it on an entirely different footing from the land of England? He hoped the Chancellor of the Excheruer, if he were aware that he had not sufficiently considered that portion of his financial scheme, would either entirely withdraw it, or substitute some alteration more in accordance with the maintenance of the public credit, and not less conducive to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Ireland. He had now briefly touched upon every point in the Budget on which he had felt it important to give his opinion, and he hoped he had done so without offence to those who differed from him. Reserving to himself, then, full power to deal with any amendments or modifications that might be proposed, he should certainly give his vote in favour of the general principle of the Budget.

In proceeding to address you, Sir, I shall endeavour to follow the example of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kent (Sir Edward Dering), both as to the tone and manner in which he addressed you. I am extremely obliged to you, Sir, for calling upon me. I never am able to address this House with that perspicuity and self-possession which I desire, yet, having attended most assiduously to this protracted discussion, I am bound to say that the more I have listened to it the more I have become bewildered with the confusion which has attended the debate. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose with great attention, and, I am sorry to avow, I cannot understand the view which he is disposed to take on this occasion. He says he is a great friend to direct taxation; and yet he says that he altogether objects to the house tax; and, again, objecting to the house tax, he says that he is very willing to diminish the exemptions from the tax, and to bring the limit down from 20l. to 10l. Again, my hon. Friend says that he has the greatest possible regard for public credit, and the most earnest desire to maintain the revenue of this country in a prosperous and flourishing condition; and yet he is willing to sweep away the whole of the duties of Customs and Excise; and he will also vote for the repeal of the malt tax. I understand him to say that he is willing to support the total repeal of the malt tax, the total repeal of the assessed taxes, and that his moderate views of direct taxation would lead him to impose only an additional duty of one per cent on property and income, which he thinks would be amply sufficient to cover all the deficiency in the public service. Now it is always difficult enough to discuss a Budget, especially one so large and ample as that which the Chancellor of of the Exchequer has brought before us; but to add to the difficulty my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose has a rival project—he has proposed another Budget— and, with all the difficulties of the subject proposed to us by the Government in the consideration of the income tax and its principle and details, my hon. Friend has another scheme for capitalising income, and dealing with the income tax on a principle entirely different from that of the Government. But again, I thought at first that we were to discuss the whole of the Budget; then again, it was suggested by some hon. Gentleman that certain parts of it were peculiarly brought under our consideration to-night; whilst, among all these fluctuating views, never was it so important that we should understand distinctly the issue we have to try. From the very commencement of the discussion I distinctly understood that the issue which we were called upon to try was, approbation or disapprobation of the entire measure proposed by the Government; but in consequence of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster in the early part of this evening, it appeared to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his answer to that question, was inclined more or less to change the issue. The question before, as I distinctly understood, was this —are we, or are we not, for the purpose of the present Budget, considering the whole of the change involved, in the proposal of the new house tax—-that change, as proposed by the Government, embracing both the doubling of the amount and the reducing of the exemption from 20l. to 10l.? I thought that was the issue we were to try. Well, Sir, from the answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Westminster, it appeared to me—unless I misunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the right hon. Gentleman wished to convey that it was no longer of importance whether we agree with the Government in respect to doubling the amount of the house tax or not, and that it was only asked of us to say aye or no to the question of extending the area of taxation in respect to this tax. Before proceeding further, I should like to know whether I am correct in saying that we are only asked, by the Resolution we are now discussing, to consent to the extension of the area from 20l. to 10l., and that we are not discussing the question of doubling the amount? Before I proceed further, this is the question I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—are we discussing the narrow point of the extension, or does the question involve that of the duplication of the tax?

The case stands thus—the hon. and gallant Member, without any communication with me in the House, made a complaint—which had been made before— that sufficient notice had not been given to the country of the measures of Government, and that sufficient time was not given to the House to consider them. Various representations were made to me from Gentlemen sitting opposite, as well as some from friends of our own, to the same effect. The hon. and gallant Member stated that in consequence of the Government not having given sufficient time, also of its being supposed that an intention was entertained on our side to close the debate prematurely, his view was that it would be a proper thing to adjourn the debate. When these representations were made to' me, I certainly did say I thought the House should take into consideration the position in which the Government was placed — seeing that we were forced to bring forward our measures at a period of the year most inconvenient—at the same time, that there was not the slightest wish on our part not to give the country the amplest opportunity of considering the measures, nor any wish to restrict the debate upon them, whilst still we thought that, under all the circumstances, it was important that the House should as speedily as possible come to a decision upon them. I said privately, as I said publicly tonight, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, that, as far as I was concerned, I had no objection to narrow as much as possible the issue, and to allow. the vote to be taken, provided we could so agree, on the Resolution before us. The right hon. Member for Carlisle says we are seeking to change the issue: but if he. will look to the terms of the Resolution, he will see that it contains nothing with respect to any change in the amount of rating of the houses, but it does contain a most important principle—namely, with respect to the area over which the tax should be extended. This is the most important vote which could be placed in the first instance on the table of the House, and upon that vote we are about to come to a decision. That is my statement to the right hon. Gentleman.

As I understand what has just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is his wish that we should not to-night discuss the whole of the Budget, but that we should discuss the narrow question of whether the area of taxation under the house tax shall be extended or not. Now, Sir, up to the present moment I, in common I believe with the whole House, understood that we were debating the whole question; nay, more, that we had been challenged to discuss the whole question.

Well, then, continue the debate on the whole Budget.

Yes, yes; but I am not talking about the continuance of the debate, but about the issue of the debate. I challenge the Government to that issue. Her Majesty's Government have said distinctly that they would stand or fall by the judgment of the House as to their Budget on the principle embodied in this Resolution. But if the House will bear with me, I think I shall show them it is impossible to narrow the issue to the question of the area of taxation only, inasmuch as, looking to the Budget of the Government, if they are not prepared to encounter an absolute deficit, at the end of the second year, they cannot be content merely with an alteration of the house tax. I want to deal with that point in the first instance. If I mistake not, the house tax as now levied yields 700,000l. a year. The effect of adding to the area by bringing the exemption down from 20l to 10l would only be to levy an addition of 150,00l a year. Therefore, without doubling the house tax, the effect of increasing the area would only be to bring into the Exchequer an additional sum of 150,000l But the right hon. Gentleman, in stating his balance for the year 1853–looking also for the year 1854– credit for 1,700,000l as the produce of the house tax. In the first year, with the addition of the Exchequer Loan Fund, as to which I shall say something by-and-by, that yielding him 400,000l, he will have only a balance of 400,000l In the first year only half the increased house tax will fall to be collected, and the other half, amounting to 350,0002l. will not be received, thus leaving him in the first year with a balance in his favour of 50,000l. In the second year he will have only the additional sum arising from the house tax, without augmentation from any other source, and he will be left with a deficiency, on his own showing, of 450,0001. Under these circumstances, I want to know whether it is possible for Her Majesty's Government, with any regard whatever to the credit of the country, the safety of the revenue, and the necessary provision for the public service, if they remit one-half the malt tax and the hop duty—without adverting to other particulars—is it not absolutely necessary that they should contend for the augmentation of the house tax in the manner I have stated? I shall take the liberty, then, of considering the Budget as originally proposed by the Government, and deal with it, under this Resolution, in the manner I understood to be meant at the commencement of the debate. Sir, although we have sat for some time during the present Session, and in direct legislation there is not much to show as the result of our sittings, yet I must say I think our time has not been thrown away. We have made great progress—we have settled matters that have been long disputed, and concerning which there was a necessity to come to a definite decision. In the first place, we have, by a large majority, agreed that unrestricted competition, as the Government says—or free trade, as the hon. Member for the West Riding has justly termed it by the shorter and more appropriate designation, in pure Saxon phrase—shall henceforth be the rule of our commercial and financial legislation. It has also been decided by a very large majority, that the taxes henceforth shall not be imposed for the purpose of favouring any particular interest, but shall be levied only for the exigencies of the revenue—or, more shortly speaking, protection is by common consent abandoned. Again, we have agreed that cheapness and abundance of food are the mainstays of the prosperity of the great body of the people of this country; and further, it is our opinion, unequivocally expressed, that this is the result of recent legislation, and that this free-trade policy, firmly maintained and prudently extended, will best enable the industry of this country to bear its burdens, and is the policy most conducive to the permanent welfare, contentment, and happiness, of the country. This, Sir, puts an end to a great controversy. This is really the harvest of the seed sown during the last six years—for it is a great matter that, by common consent, or by all but common consent—that of an overwhelming majority in this House —those great principles are now distinctly recognised. Sir, I am hound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening his Budget, dealt with a very important part of it in a manner perfectly satisfactory; for, before he proposed his financial scheme for the future, he considered what was due in equity and justice to classes whose interests, as it was alleged, had been prejudiced by the course of recent legislation. He alluded to those three great branches, the commerce and navigation of the country, the sugar-growing colonies, and the landed interest; and he said it was most desirable that all regard to classes should henceforth cease in reference to the question of taxation—that what was equitable as concerning the past should now be done once and for all, and that henceforth the good of the entire community should be the sole rule in imposing taxes to be paid by the people of this country. With respect, first, to the shipping interest, I entirely concur in the observations which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose. I think that the arrangement proposed by Government for setting apart an amount of 100,000l. for the relief of that interest from peculiar burdens falling upon them to which they have been exposed, is one that is perfectly justifiable, and meets my entire approbation. Let me say that in justice to the members of the Trinity House, of which I am myself one, it is right it should be remembered that since the year 1842, that corporation, by awards of juries or by arbitrations, have had to pay no less a sum than 1,200,000l. for the purchase of lights which had been granted by Crown charters to private individuals; and yet that they have so managed their funds that in the last ten years they have reduced their debt from 1,100,000l. to the sum of 112,000l.; and that under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere), since the year 1849 they have reduced the charge for lights by a sum of 115,000l. a year, and that also within that period they have diminished their debt by the sum of 117,000l. It cannot, therefore, be said that their management in these respects has been improvident. The proposals of the Government with respect to pilotage and light-dues appear to me conducive to a beneficial arrangement of these points, and worthy the sanction of the House; and I may say the same as respects their proposal with regard to the cessation of passing tolls on shipping, which I think is a burden which should not be thrown on the shipping interest. With respect to pilotage, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley), having this subject distinctly before him, might, on the part of the Government, have very safely introduced a measure without previous inquiry. My own belief is, that the exclusive rights of the pilots of the Cinque Ports and of the Bristol Channel cannot he? maintained, and that Government would have judged rightly if it had introduced a Bill abolishing their exclusive privileges, and that the question might have been so dealt with. I approve "also the proposition of the Government with respect to other particular grievances-such as salvage, anchorage, and certain claims of Her Majesty's ships, and I do not anticipate any difference of opinion as to this part of the subject. And now with respect to the sugar colonies, I must also rejoice at the marked progress which has attended our deliberations on this head. Towards the close of the last Parliament the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J, Pakington) expressed an earnest desire of dealing with the descending scale, for the purpose of arresting the diminution of the duties, and he said that nothing but the apprehension that the Government would be put in a minority in this House prevented him from making that proposition. Now, any such wish is distinctly renounced—fully and fairly renounced-— and I rejoice at the change of opinions thus acknowledged on the part of Ministers. I recollect when it was predicted that the discriminating duty proposed in 1848 would be the knell of free trade, and it was predicted that through the medium Of that duty free trade would be defeated, and protection would ultimately triumph. These predictions are now falsified, the arrest of the descending scale is abandoned, and that, too, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. Now I, for one, am extremely glad that the West Indian interest is to give a receipt in full of all demands upon permission being granted for refining in bond. But I wish that the House, before this de- bate is closed, may hear some answer given to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Goulburn), as bearing on the financial effect of the Ministerial propositions. If this permission is to be optional, I understand it is estimated that the importers of half of all the sugar brought into this country, including all the inferior qualities, will avail themselves of the privilege; and I understand, also, that if they do so avail themselves of the privilege, 10 per cent will be lost to the revenue by that permission. One-half of the whole sugar duties amounts to 2,000,000l. and 10 per cent on that is no less than 200,000l.; and yet in the balance of the year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with the question of any loss of revenue consequent on the permission to be given to the West Indian interest as to refining in bond; and therefore apart from the question of doubling the house tax, and the credit he has taken for the product of the malt tax when one-half of it has been remitted, his balance is already verging on a deficit; and if you admit that the sum of 200,000l. will be lost by giving the option of refining in bond, that narrow surplus will be converted into an actual deficit. According to the statement so impressively made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University — a statement recommended to us by all the weight belonging to his large experience, his spotless character, and his great abilities as a financier—that warning, given as it was with all the earnestness to be expected from one remarkable for his honest attachment to the public service, tells with tenfold effect; and I say that it does become the Government, before the close of the debate, to satisfy us as to the effect of this apparent deficit instead of balance. I pass on rapidly to another subject; and again I say we have made immense strides in this short time for which the new Parliament has been sitting. I have heard all the arguments about local burdens on land discarded by those who had most insisted on them as absolutely convincing. No longer is any stress laid on them. Even with respect to the assessment for the county rate, and the vexed question of its removal to the Consolidated Fund, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would only be a relief of l½d. in the pound on rent, and that this was a matter so insignificant that he should hesitate about offering it for their acceptance. I very much doubt, let me say in passing, whether the repeal of the malt tax will amount to a relief of 1½d. in the pound on rent. With regard to another point, still more important in my view, an admission of immense value has been made. It is now distinctly stated by the Government, who have hitherto been advocates for the transfer of local burdens to the Consolidated Fund, on account of the injury done to the land by the repeal of the Corn Laws, that the best security for the prosperity of the landed interest is to be found in the welfare of the working classes and in their prosperity; that the landed interest no longer seeks any benefit at the expense of the community, but is satisfied with the admission of that great truth, that their prosperity is based on the welfare, the happiness, and the contentment of the working classes. How is that illustrated? It is illustrated by that which was often predicted—and even in adverse circumstances it was a prediction from which I never receded in despondency, that if you would make provisions cheap—if you would give abundance to the great body of the consumers of this country, the weight of your poor-rate, which mainly falls upon real property, would rapidly diminish. And what, Sir, was the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I heard it with infinite pleasure. He said, that, in the last three years—from 1849 to 1852—the burden of the poor-rate had diminished 25 per cent; that considering the sum upon which the reduction had occurred from 6,180,000l to 4,800,000l., it was a relief of 25 per cent to the landed interest; and in his opinion that relief satisfied the claim of the landed interest, with reference to any equitable demand that they might put in for compensation for the injury which they had sustained either by the repeal of the corn laws or by the remission of the duty on the importation of cattle and sheep. So that now we have closed accounts retrospectively with all those three great classes—we have made payment in full to the shipping, to the sugar grower and to the landed proprietor. ["Oh, oh!"] I am not now stating my own views, but the deliberate statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made, as I think, with great ability, with great fairness, and with great perspicuity. And I think it is right, before we discuss the Budget, to mark those points, and while there is much left on which we differ, to show how much has been achieved on which we are all agreed. Well, Sir, I will now pass on to the prospective view which is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I must say that I cannot help thinking that there is a very great advantage in the production of this Budget by the responsible advisers of the Crown. After all that has occurred, it was to me a matter of great anxiety to sec the precise plan which Her Majesty's Government would introduce—a plan which had been announced as a system for the revision of the taxation of this country, which was to produce immense effects, and to give general satisfaction and contentment, and equal relief to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, I am delighted to see this great measure at last brought before the House in a tangible shape, and in a manner which precludes the possibility of any evasion on the one hand, or any exaggeration on the other. It was observed, by some one the other night, that one Government was very much like another, so I must say I think that all Budgets, whoever may be their progenitors, have a very great family resemblance the one to the other; and I cannot see anything in this Budget which is very remarkable, or which much distinguishes it from other propositions of the like nature. Strip it of the repeal of half the malt tax, strip it of the repeal of half the hop duty, and of this question of the house tax—about which there is to-night a disposition rather to vary the question whether it is to be doubled or not—and it would appear to me a very common-place Budget, a very acceptable Budget, and one about which we should have very little dispute. The question of the renewal of the income tax—that is, as to the principle upon which it should be renewed—would still be open to discussion and debate; but, apart from this debatable ground, whether you make a discrimination between different sources of income or not, the amount, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be very much the same; and if it be the same, your present prosperous revenue, without any rash dealing with the other sources of taxation, would enable you to deal with the duty on tea without any fear of a deficiency. Now I should like, first of all, to notice the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to deal with the hop duty; and, with his permission, I will call his attention to what I think I recollect his laying down as what he said were the canons for all Chancellors of the Ex- chequer on this subject. It was, indeed, before he took the responsibility of office, but still the canons he laid down are singularly applicable to the present case. He said —"That which I would uphold as the golden rule for all Chancellors of the Exchequer is, to beware that no tax whatever—whatever form it may take—whether it be a Custom duty, an Excise duty, or a direct tax which is imposed—should in its nature be excessive;" and then he goes on to say, "Complete remission or complete commutation; these are the two principles upon which a finance Minister should proceed." Complete commutation or complete remission! Now, this is the rule which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down as the canon for Chancellors of the Exchequer. Let us try the course which he is about to take with reference to hops and malt by that canon, which I consider so sound. Now, with respect to the hop duty, I imagine it is pretty nearly agreed, by common consent, that the remission of half the hop duty is exactly, according to the rule of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, the most objectionable course which he can possibly take. Repeal the whole of the hop duty, and you get rid of the entire charge and vexation of collection, and the loss to the public revenue would not be very great. The cost of collection is great, the amount received is small; and the impost is, I believe, vexatious and onerous to the grower, as it certainly is onerous to the consumer. The interest of the consumer certainly is, that the entire tax should be remitted. Now, I believe that the retention of half the tax will not be attended with any advantage whatever; the vexation of the mode of collecting the duty and watching the growth of the plants still remains unchanged; and, then, if you let in foreign hops upon a duty strictly countervailing and non-protective, I am satisfied that the grower of hops, so far from thanking you for this reduction, will be greatly injured by it. And when we come to the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen) we shall find that it affirms that view of the case. I do not think that any course can be conceived which is in more direct violation of his own canon, and which is more inexpedient in every respect than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to take in the remission of half the duty on hops, I will now, Sir, proceed to the malt tax; but that subject has been so thoroughly discussed that I am very unwilling at this period of the evening to prolong the disquisition on that particular point. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole) was pleased to magnify me into a great authority on this subject, and he quoted a prophecy of mine which I ventured to make in 1839. I must tell my right hon. Friend, that now when we are agreed as to the repeal of the corn laws, the less that is said about prophecies with respect to that subject the better— ["Oh, oh!"]—because it may be that the Gentlemen whom I see on the opposite side of the House, should, under present circumstances, be the first to desire that all prophecies as well as promises with respect to the Corn Laws, should be buried in eternal oblivion. But, however, I must say this, that I have invariably opposed the repeal of the malt tax, or any remission of it. It has been truly said that this experiment has been often tried, and always without success. In 1816—I think it was—a large reduction of that duty took place, and a loss was sustained to nearly the whole amount of the duty taken off. In 1819 it was again increased; and in 1821 the duty was for a short time again reduced with the same result. In 1833 I had the honour of being in the service of the Crown, together with the Earl of Derby, under Earl Grey, when a Motion was carried somewhat unexpectedly that the repeal of the malt tax was expedient. In forty-eight hours afterwards Lord Althorp, the representative of that Government, in the House of Commons came down to the House with the full concurrence of the Earl of Derby himself and of his other Colleagues, and announced to the House, that if that Resolution were not reversed, the fate of Lord Grey's Government was sealed, and that he would no longer be responsible for the Government of the country. The consequence of that Resolution was, that the House, contrary to the usual practice in such circumstances, did not hesitate to rescind the Resolution to which they had come. Again, I think my hon. Friend, if he will permit me to call him so, the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley), in 1851, proposed the repeal of the malt tax; and I then, being out of office and exercising my own individual judgment, voted against that Resolution. I was certainly led to believe that the noble Lord at the head of the Government entertained, even at that time, the same opinion. He and I acted together for many years on the sub- ject of the malt tax, and he then declared that he could not countenance the repeal of the malt tax, as it was a branch of the revenue so large that he did not think it right, with reference to the safety of the State and to its credit, that it should be placed in jeopardy. Now, I listened to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) on this subject, last night, with great instruction. He urged arguments which, if I had any doubt with respect to the repeal of the malt tax, appeared to me to be conclusive in favour of maintaining it. It has been said sometimes that the excise regulations are most vexatious, and that they interfere with the making of the malt in the best and most advantageous manner. But my hon. Friend the Member for Derby declared that such was the improvement which had taken place in the excise regulations, that they did not interfere in the slightest degree with the manufacture of malt, and that such was the skill of the British maltster in preparing his malt, that if they had a drawback he was clear that they could export malt to the continent of Europe. Another argument has been brought forward with respect to the feeding of cattle. The hon. Member for Derby declared, however, that as the law now stands there is nothing to prevent any farmer from wetting his barley, germinating his barley, and in fact doing everything but drying it up to the particular point necessary for brewing or distillation. He said also, what I believe is perfectly true, that that process, carried on up to that point, is all that can possibly be required for the feeding of cattle. Well, now, I will not go at any length into the question of what effect the repeal of half the duty will have upon the retail price to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) read to the House the other evening the evidence of the greatest brewer in this metropolis, and I believe in the world—Mr. Barclay—who has distinctly told you that the effect of the remission of the whole duty would only he to reduce the price of porter to the consumer in this metropolis to the extent of ½d. a pot, and, consequently, that the reduction of half the duty would only be attended with a reduction in the retail price of ¼d. per pot. Now, I am satisfied that when any reduction in the price of an article by the remission of taxation, as affecting its retail consumption, is limited to an amount less than the coinage in current use, that the advantage of that reduction is not appreciable. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby also told you that pale ale would only be reduced 4s. per barrel. That is, a reduction (if it is possible to appreciate it) of something less upon the barrel than that calculated by Mr. Barclay; that is, of something less than ¼d. a pot. Let us take now the case of the barley grower. I am bound to say that, with reference to the real barley land, I think there is every reason why the remission of this duty is not to be desired by the strictly barley-growing districts. The effect of the present law is to give the strictly barley-growing districts a premium on the cultivation of barley. The demand for barley of the first quality is almost boundless; but the supply of barley of the first quality is very limited. It is confined almost entirely to three counties—to Hertford, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and, perhaps, Norfolk. Now, the importation of malt is strictly prohibited, and while that prohibition continues, I believe that the barley grown on naturally first-rate barley soils—from the almost boundless demand for it, and the limited supply under the existing law— will under that law command a higher price than if half the malt tax were repealed, and foreign malt admitted under a countervailing duty. With regard to the districts which are supposed to have suffered most by the repeal of the corn laws—the wheat-growing districts of England—they are heavy soils, not suited for the growth of barley; they would derive no benefit whatever from any encouragement given to its cultivation, and would not partake, in an agricultural point of view, of any advantage derived from the remission of this tax. With regard to the rest of the area of this country, the soils—generally of a damp and cold description—are not suited to the growth of barley, and I believe that at present prices oats will be found a more profitable crop; at all events I am satisfied that no great benefit will arise to them from the proposed measure. Then how stands the case with regard to Scotland? I hardly know what the Scotch Members will say—but with respect to the proposition for taking off the discriminating duty between barley and the inferior descriptions, such as bere and bigg, it is, I think, one of the harshest propositions ever made to Scotland. There is an intrinsic inferiority in the grain itself; and why, when you say that you wish to favour the agricultural districts, you place the growth of "bere and bigg" in Scotland on a less favourable footing than at present, I cannot see. The withdrawal, too, of the drawback upon malt spirits in Scotland, will, instead of a favour to the agriculture of that country, be a moat severe blow. I will now, with the permission of the House, pass on to another topic, on which, if the country Gentlemen will permit me, I would really speak to them as a friend. [Laughter.] If community of interests does not entitle me to address you in that capacity, I really am afraid I cannot plead any argument which will convince you with reference to my motives. But still I have great reliance on your reason, and I will put the matter to you, as I think, with irresistible force, with reference to the point upon which I am now about to touch. I am about to refer to the Exchequer Loan Commission; and I must be permitted to say that, though I have opposed the transfer of local burdens to the Consolidated Fund, yet I think that if ever there was a fund really useful as an aid, and circulating for the constant benefit of the landed interest, it is the fund now in question. It is a most legitimate fund in aid of local burdens —a fund not costing the public at large any sum whatever to their detriment or disadvantage, but a revolving sum of 360,000l. a year, which is lent to the landed interest throughout the United Kingdom from time to time for purposes purely local, and these loans have been attended with the most beneficial results to the landed interest. Now will you allow me just to read you a list of the purposes to which this loan has been applied, and you shall then judge for yourselves-—rejecting my authority altogether -whether I am not right in saying that the works to which I am about to refer as made by means of this fund are of great local importance, and are works which, if this assistance be withdrawn, must be executed without the aid of capital advanced on such advantageous terms, but entirely drawn from the pockets of the country gentlemen. Now, the last return which has been presented to Parliament with reference to this subject is dated in 1852, and I will show you from it what is the benefit which the land has received, and what is the corresponding benefit that the towns hare derived. With regard to land, the works executed have been the construction of canals, rivers, drainage, bridges, roads, railways, collieries, and mines. Now, all the Gentlemen with whom I had the pleasure of sitting on the Committee upstairs with respect to the county rate, will remember the heavy burdens to which the land is exposed with reference to lunatic asylums, law courts, gaols, and public buildings; and they will also remember that, above all, there is, under the new Poor Law, the enlargement of workhouses, for which no less a sum than 1,100,000l. has been lent from this very fund. There is another matter also bearing on the state of the poor—assistance has been given from this fund for the purpose of promoting emigration from certain parishes where the population was redundant. Now all these works and beneficial purposes have up to the last moment been aided from this fund. Stop this fund, and a large proportion of these works must still be continued, and fresh demands will arise; and I contend that they must be met by great sacrifices on the part of the country gentlemen, out of their own means, either immediately or by loans effected on terms not nearly so advantageous to them. Then we come to the works executed in towns. There there have been churches built, gas and water works and baths and washhouses erected, and the execution of town improvements, of harbours and docks, and of other local works of great importance, aided with this fund, without which their execution would in many cases have been absolutely impossible. But it is said that the state of the money market does not render any such advances necessary at the present moment. That may be true; but this system has been in operation for thirty years. Loans have been issued, and have come in again during that time without loss; and with reference to the facility of repayment there is a facility granted under this system without risk to the public, such as no private lender could give. Now, there has been, as I have said, no loss on these transactions, but, on the contrary, the public have been the gainers. Why, then, disturb it? I appeal to any Gentleman who has been conversant with the Government, and I really should think that the right hon. Gentleman himself, in the comparatively short time which he has held the office with which he is now entrusted, must have felt the convenience of the existence of this fund. Frequently there is a strong pressure on the Crown, with strong local interest, to make advances which these communities desire. The answer of the Government is—"We cannot interfere with this local matter; go to the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; if you have a good case on principle, you will get aid from them; if not, we cannot interfere." Now, I say, the existence of that body is a great convenience to the public, and I believe that, as relates to the interests of the public, it is a very economical body. Nor do I think it possible for a fund so useful as I have described to be placed under the management of gentlemen of more unimpeachable integrity than those by whom its distribution is directed. It so happens that there has been a gratuitous and honourable assistance given by men of first-rate position and pre-eminence in the distribution of this fund, so as to prevent even the suspicion of its misapplication. I may mention that there are among the Commissioners Lord Hatherton, Sir T. Acland, Mr. W. Whitmore, Mr, Loch, Lord Portescue, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. A. Robartes, Mr. T. Baring, M.P., Mr. Norman, Mr. Warburton, Mr. G. Grlyn, M.P., and Lord Overstone. Now, is it possible to have a fund placed under more unexceptionable control; and why will the Chancellor of the Exchequer lay violent hands upon it, in order to prevent a deficiency solely of his own creation by his tampering simultaneously with two great branches of the taxation of the country—the malt tax and the tea duty—yielding together an income of ten millions per annum, or not less than one-fifth of the whole revenue of the country? With a balance of 1,500,000l. in his favour, he tampers with these two great branches of revenue in such a manner that, in order to meet the deficiency which he himself creates, he is driven to lay violent hands on the funds of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and without this sum—even omitting other points which without further explanations would swell the deficiency— the right hon. Gentleman has no surplus either in the first or second year, except what this particular fund will enable him with difficulty to obtain. An appeal was made, which has not yet been answered, but which I hope will be answered before the close of the debate. I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control for the Affairs of India (Mr. Hemes) in his place. There is no Member of this House who has had so long an experience in the finances of the country. There is no Gentleman, I verily believe, who understands all the minute details of finance in this country one half so well. I ask him, with all his long experience in office under different Administrations, has he ever known a Budget opened to the House in a period of pros- perity with a surplus of 1,500,000l. available, which would create for the first year a surplus of only 400,000l., to be obtained by seizing a loan fund such as that to which I have adverted, and which, on taking an ulterior view, and referring to the second year, would produce, according to the most sanguine calculation, no surplus whatever? And if this sum shall not be thought by the House to be permissible to be so taken, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, is my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herries) prepared to advise the House to pass this Budget, which will leave the resources of the country without any surplus whereby, as has been observed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, the credit of the country may be shaken to its foundations? I hope in the course of the debate we shall hear the opinion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herries) on this point. I shall not trouble the House on several points which other Members who preceded me have touched upon. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) spoke with great force and ability last night. I hold, with him, that it is a most objectionable course so to deal with great branches of revenue, that in the year in which you make the proposition there shall be very little diminution in the receipt of taxes for that year, but that in the year next ensuing there shall be an immense diminution. My hon. Friend described that system most admirably. He said it was drawing bills on popularity at a long date and discounting them at once; I must say that is a transaction which, as it appears to me, is not altogether worthy of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall take another point. You remember well the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with reference to the question of direct and indirect taxation, in which he laid down this principle broadly—and he referred to it again the other night—that direct taxation, with large exemptions, is confiscation; and I must also refer to that which I heard, and hearing could not forget, that without large exemptions direct taxation is impossible. Let us try the plan of the right hon. Gentleman by both these tests. Has he materially altered the exemptions from direct taxation? There is the great exemption of Ireland —that is to say, the largest existing exemption. Now, has the right hon. Gentleman, according to the strict canon laid down by himself, materially al- tered that exemption? What does he propose to do? He proposes to tax the funds and salaries in that country, and to leave all realised property in land, and all charges upon land, free from the tax, and also professional incomes and incomes derived from trades. He proposes also to do that which even that ardent admirer of direct taxation the hon. Member for Montrose thinks too severe. In the same year, in the same Budget, at one stroke, he proposes to bring down the exemptions from the income tax from 150l. to 100l., and also the exemptions from the house tax from 20l. to 10l. Let us try this—let us analyse this great scheme for revising taxation, which is to do justice to all parties, and to remove all inequalities. Take a clerk receiving a salary of 100l. a year, living either in London or in Edinburgh. For the first time you will tax the income of that man about 2l. 4s. a year. He lives in a 10l. house—it is hardly possible that he can obtain a lodging for less than that amount—and you will therefore tax his residence; you will lay altogether upon that man an impost amounting to about 3 per cent; but the clerk living in Dublin and in Cork will not be taxed, and neither the income tax nor the house tax will affect him. On the other hand, Ireland pays the malt tax—Ireland pays the tea duty. The only compensation you give the clerk in England or in Scotland is the amount he gains by the diminished price of the tea and porter consumed by him; you take off in duty say 4s. a year from his tea, and if he drinks ale he may gain by the reduction of duty to the extent of 7s. or 8s. a year—you, therefore, on the most sanguine view, give him a remission of 12s. in respect of indirect taxation. But the clerk in Ireland, who has neither income tax nor house tax to pay, will derive equal advantage from the reduction. How, then, can it be said that the right hon. Gentleman has materially altered the exemptions so as to apply the tax more equally to all parts of the United Kingdom? I will go further. Let us try your new schedule for the income tax. I should have presumed, after the Committees that have sat on the subject, and which were attended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for two years, and as he had ample time to consider all the inequalities of the schedules as they stand, we might now have expected to see them a perfect model of equity and justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), in a masterly speech, which proved his intimate and perfect knowledge of the subject, said he thought the schedules had been framed in haste, and without a distinct knowledge of their contents. I really must say, not presuming to assume any tone of confidence, I do think that much still remains to be done, if justice and equity are to be the rule of your new regulations. As regards the income tax, mines, collieries, railroads, gas-works, canals, are all in Schedule A, and will be taxed at the rate of 7d. in the pound, while a steamboat company or a joint-stock banking company is in Schedule D, and will pay 5¼d. Where is the greater certainty with respect to capital embarked in a colliery or in a mine than in a steamboat company or in a joint-stock company, and why should they be differently charged? I will now give you the case of two persons, both pursuing professions and enjoying about equal incomes. By a fiction of law a Bishop draws his income as if it were from land, and on his 5,000l. a year you tax him 7d. in the pound; the Judge has also 5,000l. a year for life; but he is in Schedule D, and you only charge him 5¼d. Take another case. A widow receives 160l. a year charged on land in the shape of jointure, and under the Government proposition she will be taxed 7d. in the pound. We have heard of Mr. Moore, with his 7,000l. a year for a patent place, which he considers as a freehold. You tax the widow having 160l. a year at the rate of 7d., but Mr. Moore, with his 7,000l. a year, is only asked to pay 5¼d. These are your amended schedules, and here is your view of perfect justice and equity. But I will give you another case: you talk of realised property, and your notions of equity regarding it have been acted upon in the same way. Now, any person having property in land in the colonies—any person having property in land in any part of Europe— any person having property in the foreign funds, is to be only charged 5¼d.; and then, with all your care and anxiety for realised property, there is, in the very heart of Schedule C, which regards the fundholders, for whom you profess the tenderest regard—the holders of terminable annuities. While the holder of realised property abroad is to be only taxed 5¼d., your fundholders with terminable annuities, who lose their capital at the end of 1860, must, according to your amended schedule, pay 7d. Take, again, the case of Ireland. I will put the case of a most distinguished gentleman, at the head of his profession, and who has honourably risen by his exertions, his talents, and his merits to the high position of leader of the Irish Bar. I will not pretend to say what his income is—I will not say it is more large than he deserves—but he, at the head of his profession as Attorney General for Ireland, is not to be taxed one farthing; while his clerk, who receives his briefs for a salary of 100l. a year, is to be taxed 5¼d. in the pound on his salary. The tidewaiter on Lough Foyle, with perhaps some small salary of 120l. a year, is to be taxed 5¼d. in the pound; while the Bishop of Derry, living in his palace beside the lake, is not to pay one penny. Hon. Members for Ireland should take care what is the vote they will give on this question. If they are content to share with the other parts of the United Kingdom in the gradual and safe reduction of indirect taxation, such as our growing means may safely allow, they will partake of the common benefit; but let them give a vote that will wing the arrow of direct taxation to the humbler classes of Great Britain, and I warn them that the time is not far distant when its barb will wound themselves. I must make one observation applicable to the whole of this subject— namely, in reference to the great question of the relative merits of direct and indirect taxation. I hold that an admixture of direct and indirect taxation is the sound and the safe policy for this country. That admixture requires great caution, and the proportions of it must be most carefully adjusted. Will the House allow me to refer to the opinions of Lord Derby on this point—and I do it, not in a taunting or angry spirit—but I must say that Lord Derby has, in reference to this subject, given opinions which are well worthy of the attention of the House at this particular juncture. Lord Derby said in 1847,"By acting rigidly on the principle of free trade, you will introduce inextricable confusion into the finances of the country." Now, I do not say rigidly; but I will substitute for that word rashly and extravagantly, and I say if you act upon the principle of increasing your direct taxation, without great caution, rashly and to an extent the country will not bear, you risk all the advantages of the moderate use of that admixture, and you will, as Lord Derby said, involve the finances of this country in inextricable confusion. Again, this very year, in this very Parliament, nay, since we met, Lord Derby has thus expressed himself:—

"If I understand the common meaning of' free-trade, it is this—that you will not impose taxes for the purpose of protecting individual or local interests, but that you will impose them for the purpose of revenue, and of revenue only; and that in the imposition of these taxes you will have especial regard to lightening the burdens which may be imposed on those articles which mainly enter into the consumption of the great mass of the community."—[p. 53.]

That is a very good definition of the principle; and what is Lord Derby's comment upon it?—

"Now, in that system I see much of advantage; I do not deny that I see much of difficulty and future embarrassment. I see great present advantage. I am not sure—God forbid! but I should be wrong—that that system may not lead to future embarrassment by unnecessary changes in our financial system."

Thus it appears that Lord Derby sees himself the danger arising from the extravagant application of this very doctrine of pushing direct taxation in lieu of indirect taxation to an immoderate extent. I may be allowed with greater confidence still to refer to the opinions of Sir Robert Peel in respect to this matter. What did Sir Robert Peel say in reference to direct or indirect taxation? The very last time he spoke on the income tax, in 1848, he thus expressed himself:—

"I am quite aware that there are limits to direct taxation; and I do not agree with those who would substitute direct for indirect taxation. I do not think that you could, except for a special and temporary purpose, wisely carry direct taxation to a much greater extent than you have already carried it…ֵNo doubt hon. Gentlemen say, 'Oh, as to public credit, there can be no question; but let the system of taxation be revised; let the burden be more equally adjusted.' The feeling is, of course, unanimous as to public credit. Well, Sir, but I would rather have the income tax in reserve before I come to consider this amended system of taxation. Suppose this new system to be proposed on the 1st of February next, with the certainty that the income tax must expire on the 8th of April. Now, notwithstanding all the professions of your determination in the abstract to support public credit, I have so much dread of the failure of the new method of taxation, that I should wish to have the income tax to fall back upon in the contingency— the possible contingency—of your new system not being relished, or working successfully."— [ 3 Hansard, xcvii. 281.]

I think you will discover that your new system is not much relished; and I think you will agree in the policy of Sir Robert Peel, that is better to have the income tax before you attempt to pass the different propositions comprising your new system. You say that there is no reason why these exemptions, both as regards the income tax and the house tax, should not he reduced. I venture confidently to entertain a different opinion. I think there are very good reasons why those exemptions should be maintained. I am of opinion that the class having incomes between 100l. and 150l. in this country consists exactly of that class of persons whose position is that of the greatest struggle in maintaining their position. It is exactly the point where skilled labour ends—where, if I may so express myself, the fustian jacket ceases to be worn, and broad cloth comes into use amongst the working classes. It is more or less a class of persons who are driven by the force of circumstances to maintain a position somewhat higher than their means allow. As an instance of what I mean, I will say that clerks in counting houses, the humbler clerks in public offices, many of the ministers of the Established Church, and nearly all the Dissenting ministers, have to maintain a position somewhat higher than their humble means will easily permit. And then, with reference to indirect taxation, here I have before me twelve articles which are subject to indirect taxation, yielding in the gross a revenue of 32,369,000l. annually, and of which the persons in the particular class to which I have alluded pay more than their due proportion. There is tea, 5,902,000l., and it is quite right that you should deal with it. There are means, without your new projects, sufficient to meet the reduction of the tea duty, which I think you propose to effect in a manner most judicious and unexceptionable. There are spirits, 8,550,000l.; malt, 5,035,000l.; tobacco, 4,486,000l.; sugar, 4,175,000l.; soap, 1,043,000l.; Post Office, 1,046,000l.—I include that because the humbler classes are relatively more interested in it than those of a higher class —corn, 508,000l.; coffee, 445,000l.; paper, 928,000l.; butter, 167,000l.; cheese, 84,000l. In all, 32,369,000l. Taxation to this large amount is placed upon twelve articles of the first necessity, which, as I contend, presses with peculiar severity, in the shape of an indirect burden, on that very class on whom you now propose for the first time to put this income tax. It is easy, you will say, to make objections; but the view I take of this matter is this—that you should have your machinery of direct taxation complete, and easy of arrangement, and that you should not make the burden of it heavier than can possibly be avoided in time of peace. I agree in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-bridge University, when he said, "You may talk of militia, of your naval preparations, of the increase of artillery and your batteries; but if you disorganise your finances and indispose the people of this country to meet their burdens, all your preparations are nothing when contrasted with the mischief you will have then done." I say have your machinery of direct taxation ready, for if the fatal necessity should arrive of protecting the safety and honour of this country, you must have immediate recourse to direct taxation; and I have that confidence in the spirit of the people of this country, that if the safety of the nation or the honour of the nation were in clanger, I am satisfied that they will not refuse to hear any necessary burden, but, bearing it, they will take good care that you do not prolong the contest longer than the safety and honour of the country imperatively demand. They will expect, too, that the additional burden imposed on them shall he strictly a war tax. There is the experience of 1815 in reference to this matter. A pledge had been given that the 10 per cent property tax should be a war tax, and last no longer than the war. Never was there a stronger Ministry than that of Lord Liverpool in 1815. The march to Paris had been accomplished, the victories of Wellington consummated, and the British arms were gloriously triumphant. The victory was won—but the people of this country, always generous, hut having a great love for the solemn observance of the contracts made with them, said, "This 10 per cent property tax was a war tax—the war has ceased, and so must the tax." Lord Liverpool's Government entreated that it might be continued for one year more, in order to be able to wind up the expenses of the war; but a great majority of this House, faithfully representing the feelings of the country, opposed. the continuance of the tax, and it was not merely reduced, hut abolished in 1816, Now, I say, guided by that experience, do not press unduly your direct taxation in time of peace; it is your great resource in time of war; and I entreat you, on these grounds, to pause before you consent to the Resolution now proposed.

Sir, I feel that I rise under the double disadvantage of discussing a subject which has now been well nigh exhausted by a most able and Ml debate of three successive nights' duration, and of following the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), who has entered so largely and fully into the subject, and addressed the House upon it with the ability which always distinguishes his speeches. Sir, it is not my intention to follow the right hon. Baronet through all the details of his protracted address. But there are some of the points to which he has adverted which I cannot pass over without some comment; and the first point to which I must beg the attention of the House is the mistake into which the right hon. Gentleman appears to have fallen with regard to what has been the purpose of the Government, announced several days ago, upon the subject of the Resolution now before the House. Now I bog to say that there has not been the sudden change of purpose which the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. Some days ago a question was put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), with regard to his intentions upon the subject of this Budget; and what was the language of my right hon. Friend? If I remember rightly, it was, that he should consider it arrogant on the part of Her Majesty's Government to attempt to dictate to the House on matters of detail; but that he should certainly call upon the House, previous to the Christmas holidays, to decide upon the principle of the Budget. Let me ask the House, then, to bear in mind what is the first Resolution that is to be put from the Chair. It is this:—

"That from and after the 5th day of April, 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., c. 36, upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the following Duties, that is to say—"

[Laughter, and cries of "Go on!"] Sir, I will go on when the House ceases to interrupt me. I beg to say that I have read the whole of the Resolution that is now to be put from the Chair, and that that Resolution does involve the principle of dealing with the house tax, but it does not involve the exact extent to which that tax is to be increased. I contend that after settling that question, the next point will be whether it shall be the pleasure of the House to double the house tax; or whether it shall be the plea- sure of the House to add to the existing house tax in any minor degree, without doubling it. ["Oh, oh!"] I contend that that is the principle of this Resolution —that it is the first portion of the principle of the Budget which the Government have submitted to Parliament. The principle of that Budget I hold to be this—that the property and income tax shall be assessed and levied upon a more equitable principle, and that direct taxation shall be increased so far as may be just and prudent, in order that we may be enabled by that increase of direct taxation to lighten those burdens which now press upon the consuming classes of the country. That I hold to be the principle of the Budget, and I maintain that that principle is raised by the first Resolution on which the House will be called upon to divide, and on which will rest the whole of the details which must be left for subsequent consideration. I beg to add that we do not propose to carry direct taxation to any imprudent extent, or to any extent in the least inconsis tent with what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) himself. The right hon. Baronet has quoted an extract from the language of the late Sir Robert Peel, and in doing so he said that Sir Robert Peel expressed the opinion that direct taxation should not be carried to any imprudent or dangerous extent; and that he doubted very much whether it would be prudent to carry direct taxation to a greater extent than it was carried when that statesman was Prime Minister. Now if we carry out the whole of the plan which the Government have submitted to the House—if it be the opinion of the House that it is proper to double the house tax—if the whole of this Budget be carried out, let me remind the right hon. Baronet and the House that the direct taxation of the country will even then be considerably below, by several hundred thousands of pounds, what it was at the moment Sir Robert Peel used that language, and that that was in time of peace. I think, therefore, that upon the right hon. Baronet's own principle, we may claim exemption from the charge of having proposed to carry direct taxation further than Sir Robert Peel thought prudent to carry it at a moment of profound peace. The right hon. Baronet has made a rather direct reference to me with regard to our proposals for refining sugar in bond. I am sure, however, the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me, at this hour of the night, to go into all the details of a complicated subject of that kind. So far as the principle is concerned, the right hon. Baronet has admitted the justice and the fairness of that principle: his only accusation was in confirmation of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, that by doing this act of justice to the West Indies we may impair the revenue now derived from sugar. I will not go further into the subject than to say that Her Majesty's Government do not Anticipate that, by the plan they propose of refining sugar in bond, any injury will accrue to the revenue; but within a very few days from this time that plan which is to be adopted will be placed in the hands of the trade and the country. The House will then be in a better position to form an opinion upon that part of the question. The right hon. Baronet has observed that he thought it best that prophecies should for the future, on both sides, be abandoned; and on a recent occasion, when I addressed the House on the Besolution then before us, I ventured to express a similar opinion. There can be no doubt that the prophecies made on both sides in the late controversy have turned out all of them to be more or less incorrect; and I can assure him that I have no disposition whatever to throw against him now any prophecy he may have made with regard to the malt tax in former years. We have been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman of the many cases in which the malt tax has been dealt with by Parliament, and even occasions on which it has been repealed. But I ask you whether or not the fact of Parliament having so repeatedly assailed the malt tax—at one time reducing it one-half, at another wholly repealing it—does not justly lead to the inference that Parliament and the public have for years considered the question of the malt tax to be one of the greatest importance; and whether that fact does not justify the attempt we are now about to make, not to sweep off the whole tax, as was done at the period referred to, but cautiously and gradually to benefit the consumer, and, through him, the producer, by remitting the half of the tax? And now, Sir, as to what the right hon. Baronet and the other speakers against our plan say, that this remission will do nothing for the consumer. I will take the right hon. Baronet's own figures, though I do not admit them to be just. The right hon. Gentleman assumed the statements of other hon. Members that the reduction would amount to a farthing on the quart of beer. If so, that would be 8s. a year. But I do not believe that a farthing a pot will prove the fair diminution. I understood the hon. Member for Derby last night to assume that the saving would he 6s. a barrel, which was double the amount estimated by the right hon. Baronet. Now, I should like to know whether, in former days, when there was a great controversy about the bread tax, it would not have been made a great handle of that the labouring man was taxed 16s. or 17s. a year on an article essential to his comfort and health, especially if it were remembered that that sum would have gone a considerable way to enable him to pay his rent? I shall not advert to the attacks made on the proposal of my right hon. Friend on the subject of eking out the revenue by what was called the Loan Fund. I will allow my right hon. Friend to answer that part of the question. I will only challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point out the value of that fund as applicable to public works in the present day. I know from experience that in former years that fund has been most beneficial, and was largely resorted to in the case of many public works. But now the change in the money market has made a great alteration in that respect. In the county with which I am connected large public works are being erected; but we resort not to the Loan Fund and its high terms, but to the insurance offices, the very bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The right hon. Baronet commenced his remarks by saying that this debate has become so confused that he was bewildered and scarcely knew what they were discussing. I admit to some extent the correctness of the statement; but if confusion has arisen, I think it is not surprising, considering the magnitude of the subject, the vast variety of its details, and the very great number of objections which have been urged against the plan; but that is not the cause of the confusion that has arisen. The confusion is in some degree to be attributed, I think, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have successively risen to oppose our plan, among whom there has scarcely been one—the right hon. Baronet is no exception—who has not paid the highest compliments to very large portions of our scheme. Speaker after speaker has arisen, and paid just tributes of approbation to the merits of the plan of my right hon. Friend; and, to such an extent has this been carried, that in many instances the speeches delivered ought clearly to have led, not to a declaration of opposition, but of an intention to support the Budget. In other cases the objections that have been made have been founded on misapprehension of the plan itself. I allude to one great misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Middlesex. That hon. Member declared that the taxation was immediate, and the relief prospective. That is not the case. The House must remember, in the first place, that my right hon. Friend has been compelled to make his statement at an unusual period of the year—that the financial statement has had to be made in the autumn of this year, instead of the spring of the coming year; and though it is true that the remission of the malt tax is not to take effect till October next, the repeal of the tea duty is to commence at the same time with the imposition of the house duty, the one of which will very nearly counterbalance the other. There is, therefore, no foundation for the allegation of the hon. Member for Middlesex on this point. But, Sir, I cannot pass over the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex without adverting in terms of great regret—I had almost said with indignation—to one other portion of it. The hon. Member for Middlesex always addresses the House with ability, and I always listen to him with pleasure, occasionally marred by that personality in which he is sometimes too apt to indulge, but from which I was happy to find his speech to-night was unusually free. The hon. Member, however, made use of an expression which I cannot pass over without remark. He attributed to us, in bringing forward this Budget, a revengeful feeling against the towns. I was sorry to find that the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. F. Peel) made use of a similar expression last night—the hon. Member said that we were dealing with the question in a retaliatory spirit. I complain deeply of these opprobrious imputations. I say hon. Members have no right to conduct the debate on such principles. Let us join issue on whatever may be the points on which we fairly differ. Let us discuss the principles of the Budget, or the items of the Budget: but I maintain that no man has a right to assail us with imputations which are most unjust. Nothing, Sir, can be more offensive to our feelings—nothing more inconsistent with the truth, than to impute to us, that in bringing forward a great proposal of "this kind—which, if there he a characteristic at all, it is that of equal justice—nothing, I say, can be more unjust than to say that in doing so we have been animated with a revengeful spirit against any class of the community. I protest, once for all, against these imputations. I have said that the speeches of many hon. Gentlemen opposite ought in reason to lead them to vote for the plan of the Government, and not against it. No speech, in my opinion, is more open to this remark than that of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden). I cannot refer to that speech without protesting against the comparison which the hon. Member attempted to draw between the burdens proposed to be laid on houses and the burdens on land. The hon. Member first took the existing house tax, then the proposed house tax—which he found amounted to 10½ per cent. He then assumed that houses were worth 15 years' purchase, and that land was worth 30 years' purchase; so he doubled the 10½ per cent, and came to the conclusion that houses were taxed 21 per cent, and land only 3 per cent. I must protest against such a calculation, and must remind the hon. Gentleman that he entirely forgot the land tax as an exclusive burden on land, and also that the house tax will fall as much on houses in the country as on houses in town. The hon. Member then went on to criticise, as two of the worst parts of our scheme, the mode of levying the income tax on the farmer, and the remission of the hop duty. The hon. Gentleman might make such objections, but those were not two of the most important items in the Budget—on the contrary, they were the smallest and least important. But the hon. Member then went on to say that nothing could be more just than the proposed mode of levying the income tax, and he admitted that nothing could he fairer than our mode of dealing with the tea duty. With regard to the house tax, he raised an objection—not a very serious one—and stated that he had received remonstrances from some temperance societies who would have to pay the additional tax, and who would not be benefited by any reduction in the price of beer; but, with great respect for temperance societies, this was hardly a fair argument to be used against a great fiscal change. Except this, the hon. Member bad offered no other objection of any consequence. The hon. Member went on to state that he was in favour of direct tax- ation; and, under certain circumstances, of a repeal of the malt duty. I think, therefore, that we may fairly class the hon. Member among those who ought to support our plan. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University Of Cambridge indulged in an expression which I greatly regret. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of tampering with the credit of the country, and with creating a deficiency. That charge was also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, who addressed the House in a tone and manner I will not comment on, after the just animadversions which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bestowed last night on the right hon. Gentleman. Against the justice of such a charge I must earnestly protest. I deny that we are tampering with the credit of the country. The plan proposed is large and comprehensive—complicated, if you like—but it amounts to this, that the in-come tax is to be extended, and the system of direct taxation altered, whereby certain benefits are obtained for the consumers: and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge is the last person who should have made such a charge; for the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government of Sir Robert Peel at the very time when he dealt with the finances of the country on principles as nearly as possible the same as those upon which the present Budget is founded. We are repealing a tax, but I deny that we are creating a deficiency upon a scheme of this kind, which is to leave a fair surplus at the end of the year. The rightion. Gentleman read an extract from a speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he stated that the plan which he wished to arrive at was one of equal taxation and cheap capital. Is not that precisely the present plan? I wish now to make one remark on what has fallen from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe), whose abilities are well known, and which the House must rejoice to see transferred from a Colonial to the Imperial Legislature. I listened with pleasure, but at the same time with surprise, to the first portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken his Beat on what is supposed to be the Liberal side—among those who advocate progress —and yet the first argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that we should remain as we were—that we should still allow the tax of 240 per cent to remain on tea—that we should leave the malt tax untouched—and that we should not make any effort to increase the comforts of the people.

said that what he had stated was that he would employ the surplus in reducing these taxes.

I took down the hon. and learned Gentleman's words, and certainly he stated in the first part of his speech that there was no occasion to make these alterations, but that we should leave things as they are. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax had used very much the same language. I confess I was not surprised, for the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that we had better leave the finances as we found them, which from him was very natural; hut I was surprised to find such views expressed apparently by the hon. and learned Member for Kidderminster. The hon. Member for the West Riding and the hon. Member for Marylebone accused us of setting class against class, and creating differences between town and country. This is a most unfounded charge. It is impossible to deprecate too strongly that unhappy difference between classes which has been one evil of the controversy which has prevailed for some years past. My opinion is, that this Budget, instead of creating difference between town and country, will have exactly the opposite effect. One of the great evils of the controversy lately closed was a sense of injury on the part of one portion of the community; and I was sorry to observe on the part of Gentlemen opposite, what I cannot help thinking a reluctance to allow this controversy to close. I cannot help thinking that now the Government have conceded their views, and met them in a fair spirit, they seem to feel their "occupation gone." Sir, on a former evening I heard, with very great regret and surprise, some expressions used by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who alluded to some county where he said the farmers were more disposed to march against Manchester than they would be to march against Paris.

hoped he might be allowed to explain that he quoted a gentleman—he thought it was Mr. Chowler—who said the farmers had more horses than any other class, and knew how to ride them; and another gentleman—he believed it was Mr. Ball, he hoped it was not the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire—said they would rather march upon Manchester than upon Paris.

The explanation does not make the slightest difference in my argument. It is immaterial to me whether the words fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Manchester, or from those of some other person. I refer to them because the hon. Member for Manchester treats them in a jocular way; but what I say is, come from where they may, if such a feeling exist in any part of England, I can scarcely conceive a greater evil. I know the English farmers well, and so do many around me, mixing with them as neighbours and friends, and acquainted with their good qualities; and if in any county in England the farmers could be so exasperated as even partially to entertain this feeling, it could only be taken as a proof that there was a quick sense of injury, and a feeling which, instead of encouraging, we ought to do everything in our power to allay. If such a feeling exists in any class of the community, we should do well to direct our legislation in the hope of putting an end to it; and, therefore, I was sorry to hear objections thrown out against anything which, even while it was mainly a benefit to the consumer, could be held out as a boon to the agricultural class, and a measure which might tend to put an end to such a feeling. I deny that there is any ground for any such charge against this Budget. With respect to the house tax, hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose that it is to be imposed on towns and not on the country. But the house of the tenant-farmer and the house of the country gentleman will be as much liable to this house duty as the houses in towns. Then, take the remissions proposed; will the benefit of the repeal of the malt duty be confined to the country? Will not the consumer in the town be benefited along with the consumer in the country? What can be fairer in principle than to relieve from taxation an article consumed by town and country alike? Take the tea duties again—that part of the Budget has met with general approbation. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) says he had himself intended to deal with them; only, as some member of the daily press said—only he didn't, and like many other just measures, which no doubt the Whig Government intended to bring forward—[Laughter]— they left it for their successors to accomplish. But the right hon. Gentleman gave in his ad- hesion to that reduction. The right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) said he not only approved of the policy of reducing this duty, but thought the mode in which it was proposed to carry it out the best that could be selected. Does the reduction of the tea duty partake of anything like class legislation? On the contrary, will not the consumer of every class and in every quarter of the kingdom benefit by this part of the plan brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It only remains for me at this late hour of the night to touch on that most important part of the plan of the Government on which it appears to me that more serious differences of opinion exist than on any other—I mean the arrangement proposed with reference to the income tax. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford has expressed his broad dissent from the view taken by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the arrangement they proposed in the harshest terms, describing it as an act of spoliation, and a breach of faith with the public creditor. But the right hon. Gentleman, with that ingenuity in which he never fails, and which he sometimes carries to a remarkable extent, proceeded to answer himself. He said, "Perhaps I have proved too much." That, certainly, was what he had done. He referred to a clause in an Act of Parliament, and it is perfectly clear that, if that clause means anything, it must absolutely and entirely exempt fundholders from all income tax whatever. It never has been held to bear that construction; for from the time of Mr. Pitt the income tax has touched the funds in common with all other descriptions of property. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge went rather further last night. I understood the right hon. Gentleman, whom I do not wish to misapprehend, as saying that the Government are proposing to tax the funds on a different principle from that which they applied to any other kind of property. I must dissent from that opinion altogether. The Government are not so dealing with funded property. We are classing it with all other fixed property. We say there is a broad distinction between property in the funds or in lands, and that class of income which is precarious, and by a change of trade or a visitation of Providence might be an income to day, and be wholly gone to-morrow. I do not think I could take a better illustration of the principle upon which we propose to act in regard to the income tax than the case quoted by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle this evening, but with the most opposite intention—I allude to the case of the bishop and the judge. 'The right hon. Baronet said, that the bishop may draw 5,000l. a year, and the judge may draw 5,000l. a year as the salaries of their respective offices, and that we propose to call upon the bishop to pay 7d. in the pound of his income, while we only ask the judge to pay at the rate of 5¼d. in the pound. Why, then, the right hon. Baronet asks, should there be this difference? Why, simply because between the bishop and the judge there exists that very principle of difference which in justice we propose to recognise. The bishop is the holder of an estate, and has really his income for life. But the judge is the holder of a salary which he may not possess for his life. [An Hon. MEMBER: The bishop may be deposed.] Whatever arguments may be directed against the view of the Government upon this subject, that now suggested by an hon. Member is the last I should expect to have heard. A bishop may be deposed! Why, it was possible that he might; but I can only say that I am not at all driven by that argument from the position which I have taken up, that the distinction between a bishop and a judge is, that the one holds an estate for life, the other a salary—which the visitation of Providence any day may, if not altogether take away, very seriously reduce; and in the supposed case of a deposed bishop, I doubt whether the House of Commons or the country would trouble themselves much about the amount of income tax which such a bishop should pay. Sir, Her Majesty's Government have deeply considered this most important question; and, in their opinion justice requires that the distinction to which I have adverted should be drawn. I believe too, it is a distinction which will be supported by an immense majority of the country, and by a very large proportion of the House of Commons. The views entertained on the other side with respect to this question evidently are extremely various. The Government are now threatened by a combination of parties on the other side. Four, different parties, having little in common of agreement, seem to think they may combine together to assail this Government,, I doubt the success of the combination. I do not believe the public will approve of such a combination for such a purpose. I am confident the sense of the majority of this House will sanction a principle which, in argument, hon. Members have been unable to contravene. If they should go a step further, they will find such a combination held together by a rope of sand. If they prove successful in their combination they must deal with the finances of the country. The income tax is one of the indispensable parts of the public income at this moment. Whether permanent or not—I hope it will not be so —they cannot dispense with it at this time. How, in their proposed combination, do they propose to deal with the income tax? The hon. Member for the West Riding, the hon. Member for Montrose, a large portion of this House, consisting of Members who sit on the other side, had declared that the re-enactment of the income tax on any other principle than that which the Government advocates will be unjust. Such is the voice of the country. The right hon. Member for the Uuiversity of Cambridge, the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, say that what their friends behind them called justice, they call spoliation and breach of faith. I should like to know how such a combined party mean to settle the income tax. I believe the majority of the House of Commons will feel that, while the Government have no desire to dictate to the House arbitrarily with respect to details, they call on it, and successfully, to support the principles on which the measure of the Government is founded. These principles are principles to be acted on in strict justice; they are founded on a regard to the comfort and welfare of all classes. There are those who have endeavoured to excite dissatisfaction and discontent in the country against the propositions made by the Government. I believe they have signally failed. I believe that even in those populous towns where such arguments might appear most likely to meet success they have failed. They had failed to excite the public feeling; and I do not believe that any large class can be found who will he prepared to uphold any principle, such as that of having an exempted class in the country— a principle which I consider most dangerous. The very class which hon. Gentlemen are seeking to exempt is that which have been most benefited by the Commercial legislation of the country. I believe, Sir that such will be the general feeling of tie country. I shall await with perfect satisfaction and content the decision of the Committee. Whatever it may be, the Government will at all events have the satisfaction of having submitted to Parliament a plan having for its object to promote the welfare of all classes, and which will be approved by the calm judgment of a reflecting people.

said, he could assure the Committee that he would not detain them on that the first time he had had the honour of addressing them, further than to express his opinion in accordance with the statements he made on the hustings before he was elected representative for his native borough of Halifax. He would not oppose the Budget because it was brought forward by any particular Chancellor of the Exchequer, but because he did not approve of the principle of it. Show him a good case and he would vote for the imposition of any one of the taxes that was proposed; but he maintained that the proposition now before them was not fair and just to the people. For instance, if a person in business chose to leave his friend 100,000l., the Government took 10,000l. of it as a legacy duty; but if a landowner left to a friend the same amount in land, the Government took nothing at all. Was that fair? If a tradesman wished to insure his property from the risk of fire, he was charged a duty of 200 per cent; but if a landowner or a farmer wanted to insure his farming stock, he paid nothing at all. Was that just? If a manufacturer sent his horse and cart to the coal-pit, he was charged 16s. 8d.; hut if he sold that same horse and cart to a farmer, and that farmer took them to the coal pit, he had nothing at all to pay. Was that just? He was as much in favour of direct taxation as any man, but he could not agree with what was an inconsistency. He must first know that the direct tax was a just and an equal one; and, secondly, that it was needed by a real deficiency in the revenue. And if they were going to create a need by taking off some indirect tax, he must also know that that was the best indirect tax that could be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that malt liquor was a prime necessity of life. But there was a large class of persons in this country—hard-working men, too— who never tasted malt or any other kind of intoxicating liquors. Instead of doing them harm, they found that this did them good. He was himself a living proof of what of what he had been stating. For six years he had not tasted malt or any other kind of intoxicating drink, and he was not the worse for it—at least if he was, he did not know it. He thought, therefore, the malt tax was the very last that should be taken off. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) said last night that not a single meeting throughout the country had been held by the consumers of beer to petition against the tax; and yet hon. Gentlemen on the Ministeral side of the House had said that it was for the benefit of the consumer that they wished to repeal that tax.

moved that the debate be adjourned.

said, before the debate was adjourned, he wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he thought to be of the utmost improtance to enable the Committee to arrive at a conclusion of the debate. He wished to know what was really the proposition upon which the Government wished to take a division of the Committee. He thought the Committee was at least entitled to know what the proposition was to be. He had certainly had supposed that the proposal of the Government was, that the existing house tax should be doubled, and be extended to houses of the value of 10l. a year. But he had heard in the course of the evening certain expressions which seemed to imply that the part of the proposition which went to double the house tax, was to be abandoned, and that the only proposition to he put was one for extending the area of the tax. If that was the case it materially altered the proposition, not only with regard to the house tax, but even with regard to the whole of the Budget. In the first place, he believed that in point of form the proposition should be different from what was contained in the Resolution before the Committee, which ran in these terms:—

"That from and after the 6th day of April, 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the following Duties (that is to say)—"

If it were merely intended to extend the area of the tax, it would not be necessary nor right in form to resolve that the duty should cease and determine. It would only be necessary to propose additionally that the tax should be extended to houses of 10l. value. But, in the next place, it appeared to him that the whole plan of the Government depended upon the existence of a surplus of 2,500,000l., to enable them to take off one half of the malt tax. Now, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that 150,000l would be gained by extending the house tax to houses of 10l. a year; and that the remaining sum required to make up the 2,500,000l. would be gained by doubling the amount of the house tax. That sum was absolutely necessary to be provided for in order to enable the Government to carry their other propositions for the reduction of taxes into effect. The words he had heard fall from different Members of the Government, especially from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, would induce him to think either that some alteration had been made in the proposition of the Government, or that hon. Members on his (Lord J. Russell's) side of the House had not rightly understood the proposition; so that the whole Budget seemed to be left in a state of considerable uncertainty.

said, he wished the vote to be taken on the first Resolution, and he should consider the result of that vote of the Committee to be conclusive on the whole Budget—on the whole of the propositions he had submitted to the Committee.

said, nothing could be more clear and intelligible than what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but he apprehended it did not correspond with what was stated in the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman wished the vote to be taken upon the whole Budget, but he apprehended that the Chairman of the Committee, no doubt in conformity with the rules and customs of the Committees of that House, had not put the question upon the first Resolution, but merely upon the preamble of the Resolution— namely-—

"That from and after the 5th day of April, 1858, the Duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 & 15 Vic. cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the following Duties (that is to say)—"

—a sentence which was in itself incomplete. If the question had been put upon the whole of the first Resolution, there would not have existed the slightest difficulty. But it was most important that the Committee should know whether they were really going to vote on the whole matter contained in the first Resolution, although, in point of form, the words of the Preamble only were put to the Committee. If they were going to vote for the first Resolution in its entirety, the Committee then knew perfectly well what they were about; but if they were only going to vote for the Preamble, he thought that no Gentleman could possibly know what he was about. A person who wished to diminish the house tax might, with perfect consistency, vote for the Motion; and a person who thought that any improvement might be made in the house tax might also vote for it. That was a most awkward position for hon. Members to occupy. He wished, therefore to ask whether a vote on the Preamble was to touch the substance of the Resolution or not? If not, then, as far as the Preamble was concerned, it might be allowed to pass sub silentio, and the vote be afterwards taken on the substance of the Resolution.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be driven from his object. The country would fully understand the meaning of the opposition to it. The question really was, were not the principles laid down in the Budget acceptable, just, and useful to the country? He would not even pledge himself to every single detail of the Budget, therefore he thought every Member of that House had every right, when he voted for the principle, to say he did not pledge himself to all the details of the Budget. Therefore he hoped that the House and the country would clearly understand how this vote would be taken— that was, whether the principle of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right or wrong. He himself thought that those who voted for it would not be expected to agree to all its details.

said, the part of the Resolution put by the Chairman simply repealed the existing house tax, for the purpose of substituting other duties. That was stated in the former part of the Resolution, and was the first substantire enactment, and stated that 1s. 6d. should be imposed on every house, and 1s; on every shop, and the proposition was, that the extension should take place to every 10l. house. The question was, whether the Committee would agree to double the house tax or not. [Cries of "No!"] That was substantially the enactment. Had hon. Gentlemen read the Resolution? That proposition was an extension of the house duty to houses of 10l. and upwards. That was practically the proposition. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had moved a Resolution to substitute property paying Probate and Legacy Duty, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) urged him to withdraw that Motion, in order that a vote might be taken, aye or no, for doubling the house tax. Up to this night they had argued the question, that however necessary it might be to consider the other portions of the Budget—as the malt tax and tea duties—it was a clear understanding that the first vote was to be taken, aye or no, for doubling the house tax. To-night, however, it seemed there was a doubt thrown out whether that was the question on which they ought to divide. If the mere proposition was for an extension of the house tax to houses of 20l. and upwards, it would be utterly unnecessary to repeal the existing duty, and consequently this Resolution ought to be withdrawn. If they intended to alter the duty, well and good; but if they did not, they should withdraw this Resolution altogether. All they (the Opposition) asked was, that the Government would tell them what they meant; if they meant to say they abandoned the notion of doubling the house tax, let them say so—and tell them what they intended. Of course, that would involve the abandonment of some portion of the Budget—the remission of the duty on tea or the malt tax. If that was so, why did they not say so, and say what they really intended?

said, he thought he had frankly answered the question of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and it appeared to him that the noble Lord was perfectly satisfied. He said that he thought it was perfectly understood they should take the division on the first Resolution, and that he should consider the opinion of the Committee on that proposition conclusive with respect to the general principles of the Budget. He had no hesitation now in saying, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government not only to extend the area of taxation, but to propose an increase of the house tax. After the whole debate had been taken on the Budget, and after he had frankly stated it was the intention of Government to propose an extension of the area and an increase of the house tax, he reserved to himself and to the Committee the right of moving any Amendment they thought fit upon it.

said, he felt that the observations of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were worthy of the very deepest consideration. He would support the views of the Government, which he believed to have been most frankly expressed, reserving to himself the right of hereafter giving his opinion upon their various propositions in detail. He was entirely opposed to the attempt which was being made to overthrow Her Majesty's Ministers by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were so ready to take their places—an ebullition of party feeling which would meet with no sympathy from him. He would give no countenance to the endeavours of hon. Gentlemen, who had no principles of their own, to climb into the places of the right hon. Gentlemen below him—an effort, let him tell them, in which they would not succeed.

said, he was entirely satisfied with the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether or not it would be more convenient to take the division on the preamble, or, as had been suggested, to postpone the preamble, and take the division on the substantive part of the Resolution, was a matter which he thought well deserved consideration; but as to the explanation of the intentions of Government he was entirely satisfied. He supposed the adjournment would be to Thursday, and he hoped the House might be able to come to some understanding that the debate should close on Thursday evening.

said, that it was certainly of the utmost importance that some such understanding should be arrived at.

said, that every English Member had been patiently listened to, but the moment he got up he was not heard, because he was an Irish Member. Ireland was considerably interested in this Budget; but, with one exception, none of the Irish representatives had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. Before the debate concluded, he trusted that opportunity would be given.