18 DECEMBER 1852, Page 2

Vtlintro Vtartrifings iu isarlianunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hovss or Loans. Monday, Dec. 18. No business of importance. Tuesday, Dec. 14. Income-tax Papers ; Statement by Lord Derby. Thursday, Dec. 16. Royal Assent to the Bank-note, West India Colonies Loans Act Amendment, and Commons Enclosure Bills.

Friday, Dec. 17. Statement by Lord Malmesbury; adjourned to Monday. Hon83 or COMMONS. Monday. Dec. 13. Committee of Ways and Means ; Budget Debate continued—Extension of Designs; Bill to extend the Act of 1850. Tuesday, Dec. 15. Ways and Means ; Budget Debate continued—County Polls Bill; third reading deferred till February 16—Parliamentary Papers; Mr. Tufnell's Committee nominated.

Wednesday, Dec. 15. Tenants' Compensation (Ireland); Bill referred to Select Committee—New Member ; Mr. Smyth for Lisburn. Thursday, Dec.16. New Member; Mr. Bruce for Merthyr Tydril—Derby Bribes ; Beport of the Select Committee—Ways and Means; Budget Debate concluded ; Mouse-tax Resolution rejected, by 305 to 286.

TIME- TABLE,

The Lords. The Commons.

Hour oils Hour of Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 101 511 I5m Monday 9h .(m) 121;45m Tuesday bh 7h Om Tuesday 4h .(m) lh Om Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Nom Thursday 5h 511 15m Thursday 4h .(m) 3h 95m

Friday 5h 5h 15m Friday No Sitting.

Sittings this week, 4 ; Time, 2h 95m Sittings this Week, 4 ; Time. 3.5h 30m

-- this Session. 22; — 26h 5m this Session 26; — 145h 45m

THE Btrnonr DEBATE.

The adjourned debate was opened on Monday by Mr. DAvisoN, one of the new Members for Belfast. This gentleman described himself as "no speechmaker," but intimated to the House that he was particularly well sa- tisfied with the budget, and with " Lord Derby's Government." A change in the Government would be a great misfortune to Ireland. The " Irish mind" was never so quiet. The Lord-Lieutenant is " one of the most popular" of Lords-Lieutenant; Lord Naas is an " admirable and ac- cessible " Chief Secretary ; Mr. Napier, the Attorney-General, is " one of the most able" of lawyers ; and Mr. Hamilton, the Solicitor-General, is " most able and talented."

Mr. COBDEN, taking advantage of the naiveté of Mr. Davison, reminded him, that upon a question of taxation affecting England, he would have exercised a wise discretion if he had remained silent. He was an illus- tration of the evil of having " one united kingdom " yet different modes of taxation for different parts of that kingdom. The House-tax is for England and Scotland, and not for Ireland. The Income-tax takes three per cent of the profits of the linen-manufacturers of Yorkshire; but the linen-manufacturers of Belfast are exempt. Yet Belfast, where labour is cheaper, competes directly with Barnsley and Leeds. Would Mr. Da- vison agree to the extension of the Income-tax to Ireland ? Having dis- posed of this point, Mr. Cobden went into the general question. At the outset, he corrected some erroneous impressions entertained on the Ministerial side of the House regarding the views of the Free-traders on di- rect taxation. They did not object to direct taxation, providing it were equally levied, for a beneficial purpose, on all descriptions of property. But the Free-traders did not recognize the right of the agriculturists to levy a tax upon some kinds of property in the towns, in order that they might be exempted from a tax on certain kinds of property in the country. That would be adopting the odious principle of compensation. The agricul- turists have incurred no losses which entitle them to impose taxes on others which they do not submit to themselves. He denied that there is any agri- cultural distress ; and he cited a letter from East Lothian, showing how the value of landed property had lately increased, and how farms have been taken at increased rents. But he understood, from a letter he had read that morning, written by a gentleman par. Christopher] generally considered an exponent of the opinions of the Ministry, that the reduction of the Malt-tax was a measure for the relief of the land.

ertsix that was "a most unjust proposal," and most un- e i. he omParkeewith land. At present there is a 3 per cent tax on houses: -to this a tax of Vd. or 3-I per cent is added, making it 6.; An houses waffpng more money for "compensation," they added A, making the on houses 10i per cent against 3-per cent levied .Bitt that is not' all. Land is valued at thirty years' purchase,

houses only at fifteen : this doubles the pressure of the tax on houses com- pared with land, making it a tax of 21 ,per cent on houses against 3 per cent on land. Thus, members of benefit and building societies who had saved to build small 101. houses would be taxed 21 per cent ; while the ground-land- lord who owned ouch property as Belgrave Square, was entirely out of the reach of the tax. Would the towns submit to it? If Parliament passed such a law, it would be the worst thing that could happen to them ; for it would revive the controversy between town and country, and set all the small market-towns against the latter.

But for what are we to have this tax ? In order that half the Malt-tax may be removed. Now, the Chancellor-of the Duchy of Lancaster said that was for the relief of the land ; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was for the interest of the consumer. " The Government would do well to come to an understanding with respect to their principles ; or, at least, if they could not agree with respect to their principles, that one or the other party should engage to be silent." (Laughter.) The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer had stated the case quite fairly : he said that the tax was paid by the consumer, but that the producer was subject to inconvenience and loss by it. Mr. Cobden agreed that the consumer would be primarily benefited by the remission of the Malt-tax ; and the producer also, though compara- tively. But he had always understood that the great grievance was the Excise regulations. He had been converted to the importance of repealing the tax by Mr. Lattimore, the tenant-fanner, on the ground that it would enable the tenant-farmer to feed his cattle on malt. On that ground, he said publicly that he would advocate its total repeal, if without it the neces- sary revenue could be raised; but he had always said that he would never be a party to imposing a substitute for the Malt-tax. He was quite opposed to the remission of one half the tax ; and had voted against Mr. Bass's mo- tion two years ago, because he understood the revenue could not spare it. He objected to the present proposal upon principle, and because he objected to the mode of making up the deficiency. Beer was not, like bread, a ne- cessary of life. One difficulty in the way of repealing. the Malt-tax arose from a growing and influential body, who regarded beer as a pernicious beverage. [Here Mr. Cobden read from a document signed by many of our first medical authorities, stating that it was a delusion to suppose beer and alcoholic drinks beneficial to healthy persons.] Yet the Government asked them to submit to the House-tax in.order that beer might be cheapened and the consumption increased. That was the wrong ground. The Chancellor of the ExChequer might have had their sympathies had he said that farmers had a right to use malt to fatten cattle and therefore he would remit the Excise-duty. Instead of that, -he proposed to remit one half the. Malt-tax, and, to enable him to do that, to add to the House-tax ; a proposition in which Mr. Cobden could not acquiesce. Next the Hop-duty came under review. On that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wrecked his character as a financier. Here was the only tax collected upon the produce of open fields and gardens—" a tax worthy of Turkey or Persia, but utterly ridicu- lous in England in 1852 "—collected by a little army of taxmen—uncertain in its amount, costly in collection, unequal in its pressure; and the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer treated it in the most paltry trifling way. If nobody else brought forward a motion for the total repeal of the Hop-duty, Mr. Cobden would ; and if he did not carry it, he should vote for keeping the tax as it is.

With respect to the Income-tax, the Government deserved credit for the way in which they had dealt with that question. The preposition to deal fairly with income derived from trades and professions ought to have come from the late Government. There are only two courses,—either make the tax on incopie lighter than the tax on property ; or capitalize the whole pro- perty of the country and levy the same amount on all, as they do in the United States. But the curse of the party has settled on the way in which they dealt with the farmer. In the time of Mr. Pitt, the farmer paid on three- fourths of his rent; Sir Robert Peel reduced it to one-half; now it is pro- posed to reduce it to one-third. Would farming be worth following if it did not yield a profit equal to more than one-third of the rent? The proposed extension of the area of the tax was right in point of principle ; but how would the plan work as .compared to the position of the farmer. If his rent were 2801. he would not pay Income-tax. But if he farmed as he ought to farm, he would requires capital of 2800/. or 30001. ; yet with that large capital, he would not pay Income-tax—Government assuming that he does not make 1001. a year I " Well, this farmer rides into the market-town on a good horse, looking in fine health and spirits, and he meets a lawyer's clerk with a salary of 1001. a year : the clerk would be subjected to a tax of 51d. the pound on his income; while the farmer with his farm of 200 acres of land, with a number of labourers in his employment, with his rickyards full of stacks, would be exempted from the tax altogether." Mr. Cobden questioned whether this course was worth the pursuit of the Territorial party. Why should they keep farmers as a distinct class, except to make capital of and to bamboozle them. No other class would allow themselves to be treated in the same way. All that the farmer could ask was to be placed on the same foot- ing as the rest of his countrymen, and pay upon his profits as they did. Mr. Cobden denied that it was necessary to frame a budget to enable the country to bear up under the load of competition entailed by Free-trade. Nobody had asked for such a measure. What they asked for was abund- ance, the result of free commercial intercourse ; not mere cheapness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to cheapen beer—by raising the price of lodgings. Beer, he said, was a necessary of life : but were not lodgings as necessary as beer ? As to the Tea-duties, the alteration ought to have been made fouror five years ago. " On the whole, he doubted whether the budget was the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all. (A laugh.) It did not at all correspond to the magniloquent phrases in which it was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed. Mr. Cobden humbly conceived that he could have discharged the duty in about an hour and twenty-five minutes, instead of five hours and twenty-five." (Some cries of "Ohl " from the Ministerial side, met by cheers and laughter from the Opposition benches.) A controversy had been raised, which would not soon terminate, as to who should pay the taxes. They would find it necessary to deal with such duties as those on soap, paper, and insurances ; and if the growing surplus did not enable them to abolish these duties, they would find it necessary to increase the amount of direct taxation, especially in the case of the Excise-duties. While we are extending the Colonial empire, all the ex- penses are paid from this little speck of an island. The aspect of our policy with respect to the Colonies is totally changed. The Colonies are the resort of emigrants driven from this country by taxation. The " consumptive ability ' of the country might not be impaired by an emigration of 200,000 or 300,000 ; but what would be the effect if one half the population quitted its shores ? When the people had so many burdens to bear, ought they to increase taxation ? The sum of 1,200,000/. had been voted in twelve months to increase our establishments : the ten-pound householders who sent Members to vote sums to insure their safety must make up their minds to pay the amount. Returning from this digression, he intimated that it was only in the case of a sufficient surplus that he would consent to abolish the Malt-tax ; and he must therefore say " No " to the proposal for aug- menting the Mouse-tax. Lord JOHN MANNERS rose to reply to Mr. Cobden. This he performed by restating the arguments of his opponent in his own fashion, and im-

puting motives. Mr. Cobden had forgotten the Land-tax and the Income- tax in speaking of Belgravian ground-landlords ; he had forgotten his pro- mise to support a repeal of the Malt-tax ; and the farmers would now know how to appreciate his vaunted professions of friendship. Mr. RICH condemned the budget as onesided, penal, dangerous, and unj ust.

Mr. LoWE saw no case made out for any change at all. They would have a surplus ; two out of the three great interests which contribute to the revenue are very flourishing ; and the wisest course would have been to persevere steadily in a system fraught with such beneficial results : they would then do all that a wise and prudent Government could do under the circumstances. The present time was one of unexampled pros- perity; any change would probably be for the worse ; and we ought not to form our estimate on the ground that prosperity would, be permanent. The budget had not taken this view into consideration.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, "with that enthusiasm which converts are said to exhibit," seemed unable to perceive that Free-trade is perfectly consistent with those changes and mutations. He had ably stated with re- gard to emigration, that we could not so ameliorate the condition of the emi- grating classes as to prevent them from quitting the country, and that in- creased means were increased means of emigration : but considering that fact, Mr. Lowe would have thought this of all times the most ill chosen to give an impulse to the mighty tendency of emigration, by imposing taxes on the most pinched and uneasy classes in the country. He could not acquiesce in the argument of Mr. Disraeli, that the more people left the country the more prosperous our circumstances, the more commanding our position. If pushed to its legitimate conclusion, that argument led to this—that the mo- ment the last man quitted the shores of this island, and carried his skill and labour elsewhere, then this island would reach the highest pinnacle of pros- perity. (Cheers and laughter.) Emigration is a question of degree: as long as people cannot find employment here, emigration will relieve the country ; beyond that point, it is only sucking away the life-blood of the country ; and they would be acting most unwisely if they did anything which would tend to accelerate the tremendous tide of emigration which had set in.

Having made these preliminary remarks, he turned at once to the con- sideration of the Malt-tax, which had been truly said to be the keystone of the arch. He admitted that the Malt-tax was open to many economical objections . it might be repealed in perfect consonance with the principles of Free-trade ; but he had yet to learn that endangering or tampering with the revenue was any part of Free-trade. The Malt-tax is paid with less discon- tent than any other tax. Farmers and land-agents may have held meetings, but no meeting of the people has ever been held to petition for repeal. In the face of the close and complete monopoly of the brewers, it is by no means clear that a diminution of prime cost would be followed by a diminution of the retail price. The element of "unrestricted competition" is wanting. Malt is cheaper now than it was before the repeal of the Corn-laws ; but the consumer derives no benefit, for the brewers intercept the difference. How is that ? The publicans are in the brewers' hands ; and to make up the small profits allowed them, the publicans increase the quantity of the liquor supplied to them by adulteration. Then there was bottled beer!—all know that the quart-bottle is daily becoming leas a quart, and the pint-bottle be- coming daily less a pint ; and if the reduction goes on at the present rate, the quarts will soon become pints and the pints become medicine-bottles. (Laughter; and an ironical cry of " Hear, hear !" from Mr. Bass, the tone of which increased the merriment of the House.) How then, in the face of the monopoly of the brewers, conferred by the licensing system, could they expect that the consumer would benefit by the reduction ? But if there would be no diminution in the price of malt liquors, there would be no increase in consumption, no increase in the growth of barley,t.4 Mr. Lowe could not therefore consent to the repeal of the Malt-tat; because it would not benefit either consumer or producer, while it would injure our revenue in a vital point. He compared the Goiernment proposal to a system of post-obits—it was raising money by borrowing, and then drawing bills on futurity to pay it. The reduction on the Malt-tax was not to take effect until the 10th of October ; but even then the Minister proposed to allow the drawback. He was endeavouring to in- duce people to accumulate large stores of malt, which might be spoiled, in order to get the drawback on it. But the object of the delay was, that no part of the loss by the Malt-tax should come into the next financial year. If it be repealed, let it not be put out of the financial statement, and then made out to be a remission of taxation, on which Ministers could lay claim to the thanks of their supporters, when it was to be carried into effect fifteen months after.

In fact, Mr. Disraeli had given them a double budget—one for 1853, ano- ther for 1854. Before the general election, he put the surplus at 400,0001. ; after it, at 1,300,000/. But Mr. Lowe disputed that surplus. There was 250,0001. set down as likely to be saved by the termination of the Caffre war. Now that would terminate whenever it should please General Cathcart to say that the war was over ; but the ruinous consequences would not termi- nate because General Cathcart said it was over. Mr. Lowe would never be- lieve they were free from the expenditure on account of the Caffre war, until they had withdrawn all their troops from the colony except such as were necessary to furnish our posts at Cape Town, and handed over the country to the inhabitants, with free constitutions and the full management of their own affairs, with ample armaments and munitions of war to defend themselves.

As to the proposed mode of dealing with the Exchequer Loans, Mr. Lowe showed that it would be a proceeding similar to that of a father who should spend the instalments in repayment of a loan contracted by his son, instead of paying off the mortgage on which the money was borrowed. He disputed the probability of realizing the estimated surplus of 1854. How did we know what might occur in the interval ? how could we venture to say that all would go on as hitherto ?

Mr. Mims thought that the franchise should go with the extended House-tax ; and he could not support the Malt-tax repeal. Mr. Bass defended the brewers from the charges of Mr Lowe ; while he naively showed that very little reduction could accrue from the re- mission of half the Malt-tax. There was a good deal of laughter when he said—" Honourable gentlemen would understand that light beer was not capable of such reduction as strong beer ; and therefore it would be quite unreasonable to expect so large a reduction in the price of pale ale as in other descriptions of beer."

Lord ADOLPHUS VANE supported the budget.

Mr. FREDERICK PEEL was not disposed to increase the House-tax in blind subserviency to the theory of direct taxation. Under the proposed extension there would be much disfranchisement, much discontent, and little revenue obtained. Of the compensations offered in exchange for the new taxes, the diminution of the Tea-duty was a good measure ; but it was more than doubtful whether the consumer would benefit from the remission of the Malt-tax. On the whole, he was disappointed in the budget, Mr. Disraeli, instead of being a mediator, had acted as a parti- san, and had set town against country.

Mr. WALPOLE appeared as the champion of the Ministerial measures. Beginning by enumerating the admissions of the Opposition,—that the Tea-duty ought to be dealt with, that the Ministerial propositions respect- ing shipping, sugar-refining, and the Income-tax, were commendable, and that the House-tax was a fair tax in principle,—he inferred that they ought to see whether the scheme as a whole might not be adopted, with some modifications in detail. The principles involved in the budget he described as three in number,—the extension and maintenance of the present system ; the mitigation of injury inflicted by the adoption of that system ; and the putting of taxation on a fair and equitable footing. These three principles had been justly applied in the budget

Previous legislation had left large duties on malt and tea ; and he argued that the remission of those duties would largely benefit the consumer. Be entered at great length into the figures connected with the increase and de- crease of the consumption of malt for the last hundred years, in order to show that reduced taxation had stimulated consumption. Exactly as the calico-trade had been benefited by the lightening of the cotton-duty in 1829, so would those interested in malt be benefited by the remission of half the duty. Mr. Walpole distinctly placed the repeal of the Malt-duty on the ground that it would be beneficial to agriculture. He vindicated the pro- posed House-tax, and the varying rates of the Income-tax. The House-tax is admitted to be a proper tax by the best political economists ; and to the argument that it would disfranchise borough voters, he opposed the old max- im of Parliamentary Reformers that taxation and representation should go together. The distinction between permanent and precarious income, he said, is fair and just, and needs no defence. Instead of having increased the number of exemptions, Ministers had diminished the number of inequalities. He denied that they had broken faith with the public creditor. The solo ground why the Irish fundholder and the Irish landholder are exempt, is that of residence. They are supposed to be living in a land so distressed that they ought to be allowed to recover from distress by an exemption from this tax. But that distress no more affects the fundholder living in Ireland than him who lives in England. Therefore the extension of the tax to him is just. As to the English creditor, the Parliamentary contract, if broken at all, was broken when the tax was first imposed. Mr. Walpole concluded his speech by a warm panegyric on Mr. Disraeli. " I must ask," he said, " and I would not have gone into the subject but for the disparaging tone which, I think, was somewhat improperly made use of—I must ask, whence is it that these extraordinary attacks are made against my right honourable friend ? What is the reason—what is the cause that he is to be assailed at every point, when he has made two financial statements in one year which have both met with the approbation of this House certainly, and I believe also with the approbation of the country ? Is it that you are jealous of his success ? Is it because he has laboured hard and long, genius contending with rank, until he has attained the proud eminence of his position—the leadership and guidance of the Commons of England ? Is it because he has verified in himself the dignified description of a great philosophical poet of antiquity, portraying equally his past career . and his present position ?

• Certare ingenio; contenders nobilitate; Nocteis atque dies niti priestente labors

Ad 81111111111S eniergere opes, reranique pond.' My right honourable friend has attained that position, and who will grudge it to him ? I will not speak disparagingly—God forbid I should—of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Halifax—his power and ability are admitted : but, without disparaging him, I think I may say the budget of my right honourable friend may bear comparison with any of his. The best judges in the country will declare, as I believe they have declared, that by his budget he has put himself ou a level with the boldest and at the same time with the most prudent financiers whom the country has ever seen. (Cries of "Oh ! " from the Opposition side of the ,House, echoed by cheers from the other.) They will tell you, at any rate,-that in the greatest em- porium of commerce in the globe these plans of his have reflected on him, in the judgment of those capable of judging on the subject, honour of the high- est kind. They will tell you, as you have been reminded tonight, that ho has disproved by his propositions the common fallacy which the world runs away with, that a man of genius cannot be essentially and practically a man of business. And, whatever may be the result of this debate—whatever may be the fate of the present Government—whatever may be the effect of that ill-assorted alliance which I see before me—the country will see that my right honourable friend has earned for himself a reputation as extensive as the empire for which he is so greatly legislating—(Laughter from the Oppo- sition benehes)—and a gratitude as permanent as the honest generosity of a thankful, enlightened, and reflecting community." (Ministerial cheers, and renewed laughter from the Opposition) Mr. GounnuaN entirely opposed the budget; not from a captious or hostile feeling, but in obedience to the financial principle that reductions of taxes should only be made when by a skilful management of the re- ceipts and expenditure of the country there is a large available balance. The question before the House, he said, involved the stability of our financial system. It is proposed to create a deficiency, and supply it with increased taxation. The time when this scheme is propounded is when there is great talk of national defence : but the strongest basis of defence would be an unembarrassed state of finance. The budget is based on the supposition that there will be a surplus, arising out of ,ele- meets of taxation which it is impossible beforehand to calculate. Not content, indeed, with risking a deficiency in one year, Mr. Disraeli had prepared a deficiency for a second year. Mr. Goulburn supported his views by painstaking analysis and specific figures. He appealed to those who had with him fought the battle against annual deficiencies prior to 1842, to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making away with what he had in hand. He disapproved of the remission of the Malt-tat and the imposition of an increased House-tax. He entirely agreed with Mr. Gladstone as to the breach of faith involved in the proposal touching funded property. Lord JOCELYN moved the adjournment of the debate. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the Committee would re- member the time of the year and the day of the month. " He trusted they would come to an agreement to conclude the debate tomorrow." It would be satisfactory to all present if there were a general understand- ing to that effect. Lord JOHN" Russets, did not think it possible at the present moment to come to any understanding. There were Members absent who wished to express their opinions. He thought, therefore, that the matter must be left to their discretion ; but he for one should be very happy if the (llama- ikon were brought to an end at the next sitting.

[A conversation in the House of Lords on Tuesday, forms an episode in the debate of the Commons. The Earl of Wiciteow had moved for returns of the payment of Income-tax in this country in respect of pro- perty in Ireland ; and the Earl of Dean; who did not object to the mo- tion, took occasion to throw out some hints as to the position of the Go- vernment contingent upon the rejection of the budget.

The House of Commons, he said, was discussing the question of "the extension of direct taxation, subject to as few exemptions as possible" ; and he hoped they would solve it in the course of the week. "I do not now speak of any personal consequences from that solution attaching to the Go- vernment, although I am quite sure that your Lordships will think that the decision of the House of Commons, whatever it may be, cannot be without important and immediate consequences upon the position of the Government itself. ("Hear, hear !") But I am speaking upon the question with re- lation to the permanent interests of the country, with regard to which I hold the decision of the House of Commons to be of the most vital importance. . . . . I think it is of great importance to the country that she should not be kept long in suspense as to the course which Parliament will adopt, and with regard to the hands by which that system will be likely to be carried

out I am anxious, as soon as the decision of the House of Commons shall be pronounced—as soon as these resolutions are affirmed, if affirmed they are to be—to release you from what I cannot but consider an unneces- sary attendance. But while the question, and the questions contingent on it, are still in abeyance and are still undecided, I should not, I think, be doing my duty to deprive the Crown for any lengthened period of the possible at- tendance of this House and the other House of Parliament, at a time when it might be necessary to have recourse to their immediate advice and assist- ance.'] Before the debate was renewed on Tuesday, Sir Ds Lenz EVANS said that the interval, between the statement of the Minister and the decision, if taken that night, was too short to be satisfactory. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained, that he had never desired to restrict the debate. He thought there should be ample discussion; yet he could not but remember the moment at which they were assembled, and the neces- sity for an adjournment.

It would be fair to the Government, if before the holydays one vote were taken. (" Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.) He did not want to nar- row the issue. "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 pro- pose) 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 tonight to any details of this resolution. I only ask you to agree to this, that the area of direct taxation should be extended." ("Hear, hear ! ") The House then went into Committee. Lord Jocgtarr resumed the debate, in a speech apparently prepared beforehand. Reviewing the va- rious changes proposed in the budget, he came to the conclusion that as a whole it asserted sound principles ; and although he might dispute some of the details, he would not peril the principles announced or the advantages promised, by voting against the Government.

Mr. Ossoatth criticized the budget more from a political than a finan- cial point of view.

Giving Mr. Disraeli credit for the relief afforded to the shipping interest, for his mode of dealing with the Tea-duty, and for the clear statement in which ha expounded the budget, Mr. Osborne said no man in the House combined the antagonistic qualities of lucidity and obscurity so much as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Looking at the budget as a whole, how different it was from the magnificent promises held out by the proposer! In Tune last, he bad held out the promise of a total revision of taxation; but what had happened in December? A mere shifting of taxation from the shoulders of one class to those of another who are not supposed to be favourable to the Government. The budget looked as if it had been con- ceived in a revengeful spirit against the middle classes. (" Oh !" from the Ministerialists.) Had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the "ten-pounders were revelling in the relief which they enjoyed from the re- peal of the Corn-laws" ? Mr. Walpole had described the House-tax of Sir Charles Wood as unjust ; and so unjust did he think it, that he proposed to double it at once. (Laughter.) If the tax werejust in principle, why stop at ten-pound houses ? why not apply it equally to town and country. stop at is sauce for your town goose Is also sauce for your rural gander. (Laughter.) The doubled House-tax is nothing more than compensation to the agricultural interest (Cries of "No !" and " Oh ! ") In the months of March and July last, Mr. Disraeli had described the excess of local taxa- tion on land over other property as 2,500,0001.—the exact half of the Man- tas : and Mr. Osborne quoted passages from the speeches of Mr. Disraeli to show that, in the revision of taxation, "the cultivators of the soil would find that compensation which they have a right to expect from the abroga- tion of the Corn-laws." That was the opinion expressed in the month of July last by the right honourable gentleman "at the head of the Govern- ment" (Some laughter from the Ministerial side.) Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at the head of the Government (Some cheering from the Opposition.) But what did a right honourable gentleman say who was at the tail of the Government? Mr. Christopher, writing to his constituents, the other day, said—" The Government have presented a financial scheme, which, although there is only a surplus revenue of 1,300,0001., will relieve the agricultural interest of a vexatious impost to the amount of 2,500,0001." (Laughter.) Could it be doubted, then, that the House-tax was laid upon the middle elegies as what was called a compensatory regulation for the suf- fering agricultural interest?

As to the Malt:tax, it was one of those taxes which ought not to be removed unless the country were in a state of great prosperity with a real surplus. But in dealing with this tax Mr. Walpole had argued as if there were a great surplus ; and steadily kept out of the consideration of the House that he was making a deficit, to meet which the new House-tax was to be imposed and the Income-tax extended. He also forgot to take into account the altered tastes of the people, who now consume upwards of 60,000,000 pounds of tea and 40,000,000 pounds of coffee. The sanitary grounds are pure nonsense. He denied that the artisan or the farmer would get any benefit by the re- mission of one-half the tax. Neither would the agricultural interest generally receive any benefit. The barley-producers were never better off than they are now. He himself sold barley last week, and he never had got better prices since he had been farming. All the complaints came from the cultivators of wheat-lands ; and saleable barley would not grow on such lands. Then it was said that cattle might be fattened on malt : but the men of science were of opinion that ground barley was better for that purpose than malt. Mr. Newdegate and Sir Robert Peel concurred against the par- tial remission of the tax ; which had been removed and reimposed three times since 1816. What had become of all Mr. Disraeli's pet, scheines—his adjustment of local burdens, tobacco-culture, transference of poor-establish- ment charges on the Consolidated Fund, and the like ? After all his promises, be should have brought forward something more solid than the partial re- peal of the Malt-tax. Mr. Osborne then discussed the Income-tax propositions. The tax was originally imposed by Sir Robert Peel as a temporary expedient to make up a deficit, and Ministers were bound to state their views as to the length of its further continuance. In February 1851, Lord Derby was for applying surplus revenue to the extinction of this tax ; and Mr. Reifies made a motion to that effect shortly afterwards. Quitting finance, Mr. Osborne made an amusing attack upon Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton ; showing bow he had abandoned his old friends on Free- trade, and joined his old opponents just as they gave up theprinciple of Protection ; and quoting passages from his England and the _English, in which " direct taxation" was termed a " dangerous experiment," and the opinion was put forward that the national creditor would be in less danger from the Radicals than from the country gentlemen. In 1833 the deficit caused by the momentary repeal of the Malt-tax [the repeal was voted on a Friday and rescinded on a Monday] was actually proposed to be made up by a tax on Sir Edward's " Master Fundholder."

Referring to the bearing of the budget on Ireland, Mr. Osborne refused to be a party to an increase of her taxation ; - and he appealed to the Irish Members not to assist in laying taxes on England which they are not pre- pared to apply to Ireland. From this he glided into a commentary on the panegyric spoken by Mr. Walpole on Monday night. Mr. Osborne concur- red m many points of that panegyric. ("Hear, hear I ") The energy, ability, the great powers of Mr. Disraeli—the " ingenium velox, audacia perdita, sermo promptua "—all these he would grant ungrudgingly. But when they were told to admire him as "the most bold and prudent financier the world ever saw," probably they would think that in financial projects " discretion is the better part of valour." Mr. Cayley had said this must be a most popular budget, because there was such a cordial reception of Minis- ters at Guildhall last week. But it reminded Mr. Osborne of the reception of Buckingham and Richard the Third when Duke of Gloster. Gentlemen would remember the passage in Shakspere- " When be had done, some followers of mine own,

At lower end o' the hall, hurl'd up their caps, And soros 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. (Great laughter and cheering.) He would venture to suggest to the Home Secretary, when he quoted the recep- tion at Guildhall, that it was not very probable a set of well-to-do gentle- men, who were met to discuss the tender merits of turtle and venison, would be inclined to criticize with any severe eye the dry details of a financial pro- ject. 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 150/. a year—it was the energetic me- chanic, 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 House, in the name of those classes, to resist a budget which was based at once upon ty- ranny and injustice. (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON conceived that the budget was "bold, wise, and statesmanlike." Probably it had the confidence of the country. He

defended the extension of the Income-tax to Ireland. He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a perfect right to treat the money derived from the Public Works Loan Fund as revenue ; for it was the difference of the interest paid for money borrowed and the interest made by that money. Hitherto Members had lost sight of the actual question to be decided in Committee. Sir BErrissusr Ham, brought it to light. First, it was said, they were to decide whether the House-tax should be doubled : now Mr. Disraeli told them that he was not disposed to take the issue on that ques- tion, but on whether the area of taxation on houses should be extended. The real question, however, was—should the House-tax be doubled in order that the Malt-tax might be repealed ?

To show the operation of the proposed House-tax, he stated that in three great towns there would be an increase of 8 per cent upon the old window- duty ; while in sixteen counties there would be a decrease of 50 per cent. The City of London, which was assessed at 69,300/. to the Window-duty, would be assessed under the new House-tax to 73,1101., an increase of 38081. Bt. Pancras, in 1851, paid Window-tax 51,2181. ; in 1853 it would be charged duty 53,4281., being an increase of 22101., or about 5 per cent. Bedford, Bucks, Cambridge, Salop, in 1851, paid Window-tax 51,993/.in 1853 they would be charged House-ta122,1421., a decrease of 29,8511., or nearly 60 per cent St. Marylebone, in 1851, paid Window-tax 66,596/. ; in 1853 it would be charged House-duty 67,5841., an increase of 9881., or about 11 per cent. Lincoln, Norfolk, Dorset, in 1851, paid Window-tax 66,2861. ; in 1853 it would be charged House-tax 30,996/4 a decrease of 35,2901., or 45 per cent. Westminster, in 1851, paid Window-tax 118,4721. ; in 1853 it would be charged House-duty 134,4761., an increase of 16,004/4 or 10 per cent. Cumberland, Hereford, Hertford, Huntingdon, Northampton, Rutland, Suffolk, Westmoreland, Wilts, in 1851, paid Window-tax 118,5211. ; in 1853 they would be charged House-duty 49,1581., a decrease of 69,363/., or 70 per cent. When complaints were therefore made that they were set- ting town against country, it would be apparent from the figures he had quoted that the real authors of setting town against country were those who had brought forward a proposition fraught with so much partiality and un- fairness.

Sir Joan Ducxwount, looking at the budget as a whole, thought it a comprehensive scheme of taxation. The shipowners had been justly re- lieved ; and the alteration of the Tei-duties would be beneficiaL He was not clear is to malt. The class among which his constituents ranked would have been unjustly treated by the proposed large addition to the House-tax ; but as he understood that the increase of rate was not affirmed by the resolution before the House—(Ironical cries of " Hear !" from the Opposition)—but that the extent of taxation would remain an open ques- tion, he was prepared to vote " in favour of maintaining the Government in the position they now occupy" ; which he believed was the real question they were called on to decide.

Mr. Hums seemed doubtful as to the real question at issue. Had not the last statement of Mr. Disraeli entirely altered it ? -and would he not withdraw the resolution, or amend it, so that the Heise Ailght know what was the point they were to divide upon ? Some explanation on this head was absolutely necessary. It would puzzle any man out of the House, and it puzzled him in it, to know what was the subject of debate. The financial statement was at variance with the declaration of Mr. Dis- raeli that his was a Free-trade budget, setting at rest the vexed question of class politics. Approving of the boons to the shipping interest, and the per- mission to refine sugar in bond, Mr. Hume asked why the protective duties on 233 articles of import were not abolished—for they only produce 434,000/. —and then he need not have added anything to the taxation of the country. Mr. Hume approved of the recognition of the distinction between perma- nent and precarious income; a bold step for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the common sense of the community was with him. As to the Ifou,e- tax, that is one of the worst taxes that can be collected ; unequal and un- just. If they wanted a direct tax, let them add 1 per cent to the Property- tax, and strike off the House-tax, and they would receive more by that than by doubling or trebling the tax on houses. Sir EDWARD DESTRO approved of the general principle of the budget. Several Members rose, and it seemed doubtful who was entitled to priority.; but the Chairman of the Committee named Sir Zures GiA- HAU who forthwith addressed the House.

He had listened attentively to the protracted discussion ; but the more he had listened, the more he became bewildered with the confusion of the de- bate. Up to that evening, he thought they were to discuss the whole budget ; but from the answer given to Sir De Lacy Evans early in the evening, it appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was inclined more or less to change the issue. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) He seemed to intimate that it was of no importance whether the House agreed with the Govern- ment in regard to the doubling of the House-tax or not, but they were only called upon to say "Ay" or • No" with reference to the extension of the area of the tax. Was it so ?

Unable to resist this appeal, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and restated the case.

He had explained that Ministers had not the slightest wish to restrict de- bate ; but they thought the House ought as speedily as possible to come to some conclusion on the subject of the budget. He had no objection to nar- row the issue as far as possible, and allow the vote to be taken upon the first resolution ; which contains nothing with respect to the amount of the rate on houses, but a " most important principle"—namely, with respect to the area over which the tax should be extended.

Sir JAMES GRAHA1! continued- " As I understand what has just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, it is his wish that we should not discuss the whole budget ; but that we should confine ourselves to the narrow question whether the area of the taxation under the House-tax Act should be extended or not. Now, up to the present time we have been debating the whole of the budget. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) We have been challenged so to discuss it. (Renewed cheers.) Her Majesty's Government said distinctly, that they would stand or fall by the judgment of the House ; and upon that under- standing issue was joined upon a particular resolution." (Continued cheers.)

It will be impossible to narrow the issue to the question of the area of taxa- tion only ; as Government will have to encounter a deficit unless they are prepared to meet that deficit by augmenting the House-tax. As at present levied, that tax yields 700,0001. a year; its simple extension to ten-pound houses is estimated to give 150,0001. more—making a total of 850,000/. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer took credit for 1,700,0001. as the produce of the House-tax in 1853-4 and 1854-5; and he also took credit for 400,0001. from the Exchequer Loan Fund. Now in the first year only half the House- tax comes to be levied, leaving a balance of 50,0001.: in the second year only the additional sum arising from the House-tax, leaving a deficit of 450,0001. Was it possible, then, for the Government having any regard to the credit or safety of the country, to remit half the Malt-tax and the Hop- duty, and to stand by their budget in every particular, to say that the aug- mentation of the House-tux will be sufficient ?

Sir James then went into a general examination of the budget. Since Parliament assembled they had settled many things. It was agreed that Free-trade henceforth should be the rule of our financial and commercial policy ; and Protection, by common consent, had been abandoned. It had been agreed that the cheapness and abundance of food were the mainstays of national prosperity ; and that the Free-trade policy would best enable in- dustry to bear its burdens. Those matters being settled, Sir James concurred in the just and provident arrangement proposed with respect to the shipping interest. He thought a bill on pilotage might have been brought in without previous inquiry ; and that the exclusive rights of the pilots of the Cinque Ports could not be maintained. As to our Sugar-growing Colonies, there has been a marked progress in them. The prediction that Free-trade would not answer has not been verified. He was glad the West Indian interest was to take a receipt in full in the power of refining in bond. But, if that power were optional, would there not be a loss of 10 per cent, or 200,000/. of the revenue ?—a loss not allowed for by Mr. Disraeli ; and therefore, apart from the remission of the Hop-duty and Malt-tax, the narrow surplus would be converted into an actual deficiency, and the warning of Mr. Gladstone be but too well justified. Passing briefly over other topics, Sir James recurred to the immense strides made in this short session. Arguments about the transfer of local burdens were discarded as obsolete. It was also admitted—and it was an admission of an immense value—that the landed interest no longer seeks any benefit at the expense of the community, but is satisfied that their prosperity is based

on the welfare, °

happiness, and content of the working classes. That was illustrated by

the diminution of poor-rates from 6,000,0001. to 4,800,0001., being a relief of 25 per cent to the landed interest mainly ; and, in the opin- ion of Mr. Disraeli, such relief satisfied all claims of the landed interest to compensation for the repeal of the Corn-laws. (Cries of " No' no !" and "Hear, hear !") That was the opinion of Mr. Disraeli; and it showed that while there is much left on which we differ, there is much also on which we agree.

He next considered Mr. Disraeli's prospective view of the finances. Every budget bears a strong family likeness to all others. Strip it of the Malt-tax and Hop-duty reduction and the House-tax question, and the present budget has little peculiarity. But, tried by the canons laid down by Mr. Disraeli himself, the partial remission of the Hop-duty is objectionable. He had formerly said, "complete remission, or complete commutation," was the cor- rect principle : then why had he not acted upon one or the other ? Sir James said he had never advocated the repeal of the Malt-tax, but always voted against it. He proceeded to enforce arguments similar to those of previous speakers against the proposed reduction,—namely, that it would notappreci- ably lower the price of beer ; and that it would not benefit the agricultural interest.

From this topic he turned to another, and drew forth an expression of the feeling with which as one of the main supporters of Sir Robert Peel he is still regarded. " I will now pass on to another topic, to which, if the country gentlemen will permit me to speak to them again as a friend— (Derisive cheers from the .Ministerial benches)—if you are not satisfied that I have a community of interest with you—(Loud eheersfrom the Opposition) —I am really afraid I cannot plead any argument which will convince you with reference to my motives ; but still I have great reliance upon your reason. I am about to refer to the Exchequer Loan Commission." If ever there was a fund which tended to the constant benefit of the landed interest, that is the fund. He touched upon points which Mr. Lowe and others had made ; adding his testimony to the great benefit of the fund in the construction of numerous local works of utility, in the rural districts and in the towns. The system has been in operation for thirty years. There has been no loss upon it : then why disturb it ? Why should Mr. Disraeli lay violent hands upon this fund, to meet a deficiency which he himself has created by tam- pering with the taxation of the country, and seeking a simultaneous reduc- tion in the Malt-tax and Tea-duties which yield one-fifth of the whole revenue ? In fact, beyond what he can get from these funds, he has no surplus. Sir James appealed to Mr. Herriea, whom he saw in his place, to say whether he had ever known, in all his great experience, a budget opened to the House in a time of great prosperity, with a surplus of 1,500,0001., which would create for the first year only a surplus of 400,000/., to be

obtained in the way just mentioned ? Mr. Lowe, in a speech of great force and ability, had admirably described the system as drawing bills on popularity at a long date and discounting them immediately.

Sir James remembered a speech in which Mr. Disraeli laid down the prin- ciple that direct taxation with large exemptions is confiscation ; and also a speech made the other night, when he said direct taxation without large ex- emptions is impossible. By a great variety of illustrations Sir James showed how cases of much hardship and injustice would be sure to occur under the new scheme of the Income-tax and the House-tax. Supporting his opinion with quotations from Lord Derby and Sir Robert Peel, he contended that the combination of direct and indirect taxation is the safe policy for this country. He held that the exemptions under the Income-tax and House-tax ought not to be reduced, but maintained ; as the class having incomes between 1001. and 1501. a year constitutes exactly the class who feel the greatest dif- ficulty in maintaining their position ; for they are compelled to maintain a position somewhat higher than their income allows. l'ressing on this very class there are twelve indirect taxes—on tea, spirits, malt, tobacco sugar, soap,. corn, coffee, paper, butter, cheese—yielding in all 32,369,0061., and pressing severely on the class it is now proposed to visit with direct taxation in addition. He recommended that direct taxation should be kept as a war- tax. "Now I say, guided by experience, do not unduly press your direct tax- ation in time of peace; it is your great resource in time of war ; and I en- treat you on these grounds to pause before you consent to the resolution be- fore you." (Cheers.) Sir Jowar Napa:n.0)7 addressed himself first to the alleged alteration in the purpose of the Government with regard to the resolution before the House. There was no such sudden alteration as Sir James Graham seemed to suppose. Mr. Disraeli had said that he wished for a decision on the prin- ciple of the budget before Christmas; but that it would be arrogant in him to dictate to the House in matters of detail. That was his answer to Mr. Duncombe.

"Now let me ask the House," continued Sir John, "to bear in mind what is the first resolution before them. It was, " That from and after the 5th day of April 1853, the duties granted and made payable by the act 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 36, upon inhabited dwellinghouses 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 dwellinghouse.s the follow- ing duties, that is to say—" (Laughter, and cries of "Read on !")He would go on when the House ceased to interrupt him. (Ministerial cheers.) He begged to say, he had read the whole of the resolution which had been put from the chair. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh !" and " Hear, hear. !") That resolution involved the principle of dealing with the House- tax—of extending the area add and after that, the House of Commons might either double the tax or add to it in any minor degree. (Ironical cheers.) That is the principle involved in the resolution—(Renewed cheers and coma- ter-cheers)—the details are left to future consideration. Sir Robert Peel had been quoted to warn the Government not to carry direct taxation to an imprudent extent ; and even if the House-tax were agreed to, the direct taxation would be still several hundred thousand pounds below the point at which it stood when Sir Robert Peel used that language. Sir John continued to speak for some time on the various topics of debate ; but the matter was no longer interesting, and the House was comparatively inattentive. He represented that the Exchequer Loan Fund had ceased to be resorted to, owing to the change in the money-market. He indignantly denied that the budget had been brought forward in a "revengeful" or a " retaliatory " spirit. He complained of these opprobrious imputations— gentlemen had no right to conduct debates on such a principle as that. (Cheers and counter-cheers.) He denied that the Government were endan- gering trade and creating a deficiency. "No one has a right to say we are creating deficiencies, if we can present a surplus at the end of the financial year." Mr. CROSSLEY having intimated his opposition, Sir ALEXANDER COCK- BURN moved that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Before this motion was put, a conversation ensued as to the proposition upon which the House would ultimately divide. Lord JOHN RUSSELL raised the question—

What he had heard that evening led him to doubt whether the proposi- tion for the increase of the House-tax would be insisted on ; and if it were not, the whole of the budget would be left in a very uncertain state. The whole plan depended on the resolution being retained in its original form ; for the sum to be raised by the additional rate would be necessary to make up the deficiency.

The CHANCELLOR of the EacrreQuEn—" I wish that the vote of the Com- mittee should be taken on the first resolution, and I shall consider that vote decisive on the whole budget." A MEMBER-" On what proposition are we to vote ?" The CHANCELLOR of the Exonaciumi--" All the propositions on the table."

Mr. GLADSTONE remarked, that the Chairman had not yet put the question to the Committee on the first resolution, but on the preamble of the first resolution, and on a sentence which was in itself incomplete. If they were to vote on the first resolution, they would know what they were about ; but if on the preamble, no man could know what ho was about when he voted. As this was a very awkward position to occupy, it appeared to him to be very doubtful whether it would not be desirable to let the vote on the preamble pass sub silentio, and to take the division on the first resolution, Mr. WrLt.rAm MILES understood that the vote was to be taken on the principle of the budget.

Sir C'EARLES WOOD showed the difficulty of dividing on the resolution as put from the chair. If the Government meant to say that they had aban- doned the notion of doubling the House-tax, they should say so, and put their resolution in a suitable shape.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER again explained, that the Govern- ment would go to the vote on the first resolution, and that they would con- sider the decision of the Committee on that vote as conclusive upon the budget. The resolution embraced not merely the extension of the area of taxation, but the increase of the House-tax ; though he would not bind him- self or the House to numerical details.

Lord Jome Russel...1. expressed himself perfectly satisfied with that decla- ration.

The debate was then adjourned till Thursday.

[In 'the-House of Lords, which sat only for a few minutes early on Thursday evening, the Earl of DERBY gave notice, that in the event of the resolutions then before the House of Commons being sanctioned by the House that evening, he should on Friday move the adjournment of their Lordships' House for the recess.] Before the debate was resumed on Thursday, a long conversation arose upon the question, what proposition was really before the House. Lord Jonrr Hussars. pointed out the usual course,—namely, that the Chair- man should read the resolution until stopped by an amendment; and as there was no amendment before the House, would it not be more regular to read the whole of the resolution, and put the question so that they might have before them the exact proposition of Ministers in their own terms ?

The CHAIRMAN, concurring with Lord John Russell's account of the custom of the House, stated, that from the moment Mr. Williams with- drew his amendment, the matter had been discussed upon the proposition "Ay" or " No" ; and the discussionovould proceed until the Committee gave directions to the contrary. Mr. Hums apprehended that the dis- cussion went upon the whole resolution, as if no amendment had been proposed. But the CII4IRMAN said, there were "other" amendments.

The Cristrcria.cat of the EXCHEQUER volunteered an explanation. The highest authority had informed him that it was necessary to take the resolution paragraph by paragraph. As the first sanctioned the increase, and the second the extension of the House-tax, the Committee would not be called upon to decide its amount. Representations to that effect had been made to him from both sides of the House.

Mr. GLADSTONE said, it was not competent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any arrangements with individual Members in regard to the course of the Committee. The Chairman, in reading the resolution, might be stopped in two ways ; either by an amend- ment, or by a direct negative. It was understood that when Mr. Williams withdrew his amendment, Mr. Bright called for a distinct and simple negative : was Mr. Bright content to take a negative on the whole proposition ? Mr. BRIGHT answered, tlfat he bad no idea of taking any part beyond suggesting the withdrawal of the amendment.

That being disposed of, Sir ROBERT Imam and Mr. BOUVERIE sug- gested that the entire resolution should be read ; but Sir JOHN Palm:corm struck in with another Government explanation. The resolution contains three proposals : the fair course would be, not to discuss them, but to divide upon the preamble, which involves the principle of the Govern- ment proposition. Mr. Gorruatare intimated that a Committee of Ways and Means is not the place to decide upon a principle. Mr. Hnsra.zr, who seemed disposed to discuss the propriety of doubling the House-tax, was called to order ; and he moved "that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again." Here the CHAIRMAN read the preamble upon which the amendment was moved.

Noting these repeated shillings of the issue, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE pressed to know what the Government really meant : after three nights debate, they did not know on what they were going to divide ? Mr. Disamar' regretting extremely that be had been misinterpreted, desired a vote on the resolution ; declaring that personally he should consider no one voting for the resolution bound as to the amount contained in it. After more conversation, he repeated this more emphatically : if gentle- men voted on this first decision as one of policy and general confidence in the Government, they would be perfectly free, as far as Government is concerned, on a subsequent occasion to oppose the increase of the tax. So that gentlemen who were asked to vote one shilling to her Majesty, said Mr. EvELYN DENISON, would afterwards be at liberty to interpret the shilling to mean sixpence, or fourpenee ! After more talk, and fur- ther explanation by the CHANCELLOR of the EXCECEQUER, Mr. Hindley's amendment was withdrawn ; the Cum:Lowe went on reading until he was stopped at "houses and shops" ; and Mr. SPoceeza moved an amend- ment, to insert the words "not exceeding." Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. Gouiriums, and Mr. LABOUCHERE, objected to a departure from the usual practice, which might open the door to inconvenience. Mr. WALPOLE thought the "surplusage" might make the object of the resolution clear to " new Members ' ; the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was in favour of adhering to the old form; and Mr. Sroosont had not the least objection to withdraw his amendment.

At last the resolution was read from the chair ; and the debate was resumed in full swing, by Sir ALEXLNDER Comenuarr. At considerable length he recited many of the arguments that had already done service- able work in opposition ; showing the profitlessness of the remissions to the public ; pointing out duties that might have been remitted with general benefit—such as wine, or paper ; and contrasting the budget with the promises of the new financial Prometheus. What had Mr. Disraeli done ? Literally nothing. He had not satisfied either party ; and why ? Because he had made promises with reference to the subject of finance which he could not possibly realize.

Mr. Wurrasma vindicated the portion of the budget affecting Ireland. The exemption of the fundholder, whose claim rested only on the ground of residence, was indefensible in principle and mischievous in practice. The exemption of the land was based on principle. Mr. Nichol' had been sent to make out a case for taxing Ireland; on the faith of his estimate the Poor-law had been introduced, but each succeeding year had falsified his estimate [312,000/.] ; and the enormous amount paid by the land in poor-rates ten years after [2,177,6511.] is the ground for exempting the land of Ireland from the Income-tax. Referring-to the Teetotal objection to the repeal of the Malt-tax, he said, " Mr. Cobden had given the people bread, and he appeared to wish now that they should have bread and water."

Mr. G. H. Mooax complained of the elaborate mystification introduced into the debate ; and called upon the Irish Members to reject the budget.

Mr. PEACOCXE would vote -for the House-tax ' • but asked Mr. Disraeli, whether he thought the vituperation and abuse he would receive for ex- tending the Income-tax to Ireland was not too dear at 60,0001.

Sir FRANCIS BARING, criticized the whole scheme over again ; and par- ticularly the practical inequalities of the House-tax. For example, Enowle, a large house, almost a palace, near Seven- oaks, is rented at 501. a year ; which rent bears no proportion to the means of the occupier. There is not the slightest proportion between the rent paid by the higher and that paid by the lower classes. A man with 501. a year pays 101. a year rent ; but what man with 50001. a peat paid 10001. a. vat .ienta Out of 100 first-class private houses, inhabited by two dukes, one marquis, three earls, six lords, and gen- try not particularly distingeisli*lotatir povertt, only one house was rated at 2401. a year, auid,only tied at, ;901, s year; „while the incomes of the occu- piers bore no proportion: totheir rent. Lord Dauariasnuo wanted to know whether Scotland deserved to be -victimized in order that a few favoured localities might be benefited by the remission,of the Malt-tax?

The resolution under discussion must be taken as the result of promises of relief held out to the :agriculturists ; and he asked Mr. Disraeli whether he wished it to be believed that he had redeemed those promises, or whether he bad not played off a cruel and heartless hoax towards a class of the com- munity of whom he would say, in the words of Mr. Disraeli, that " the British farmer was a primitive sort of person, who believed what he was told." Ministers had " wilfully, rashly, and recklessly" misled the farmers. He withdrew the word " wilfully," but they had -done their best to make the farmer a laughingstock, and there they would leave him. (Cheers and " Oh !") Up to the present moment few farmers in Scotland pay the House-tax, but now very few would escape either that or the Income-tax. He would oppose the budget.

Colonel Brant said that his county, Ayrshire, had favourably received the budget ; and he thought that more benefit would be received from the taxes remitted than injury from those put on.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in rising to reply, was received with vociferous cheers by his own party. " After four nights of criticism, conducted by some of the most con- siderable reputations in this House, on the propositions that I have laid on the table of the Committee, I now rise to vindicate those propositions." The objections urged against them were unfounded and illusory. First as to the sum of 400,0001., which, under the head of repayments, it was proposed to take as part of Ways and Means. The Exchequer Loan Fund originated in circumstances exactly the reverse of those under which it exists. At the Peace, the labour-market was suddenly disturbed; and besides the labourers let loose, 200,000 seamen and soldiers were at once disbanded. The Ex- chequer Loan Fund was established, and the money raised by the credit of Exchequer Bills was employed in " public works." In 1842, an account was taken of the Fund, and it was found that about 3,000,0001 had been raised by the Exchequer Bills thus issued ; of which 2,000,0001. had been paid off) and the remainder was then funded : it was also arranged, that instead of raising loans on Exchequer Bills, the Commissioners should receive 360,0001. a year from the Consolidated Fund ; and 60,000/. was subsequently transferred for the use of public works in Ireland. This is the fund which Sir James Graham said had circulated to the constant advantage of the landed interest—building bridges, enlarging workhouses, erecting county gaols and asylums. Now, under this fund money is lent at a higher rate than the money-market rate. Five per cent is charged for profitable, and four per cent for unprofitable works. But first-rate securities will not pay five or four per cent, when they can command money at three-and-a-half ; and the only chance of employing the fund is on second-rate securities. Country gentlemen are not applying for any great amount of that fund ; and at this moment upwards Of 380,000/. is lying perfectly idle. " Large balances of the public money lying idle are a feature which ought not to be encouraged"-' but that large amount is peculiarly increased every quarter by 90,0001., less the amount paid to Ireland. What is the object of that balance ? Sir James Graham said that not a single shilling has been lost ; and he asks, " Why do you touch it ?" And Sir James said it was convenient to a Minister to have such a fund at his command. :No doubt, it was convenient. "There are moments when even I, with my brief experience of office, which seems so much envied, may experience the convenience of such a fund" ; but as yet he had not had the slightest idea of availing himself of the opportunity. There had been flagrant misappropriation, and an immense amount of the money was squandered -without the cognizance of Parliament—entirely by the machinery of the Public Works Loan Fund. Take the case of the Thames Tunnel. Ingenious engineers resolve to make a tunnel under the Thames, without the slightest chance of getting any interest for the money expended. They appeal to the Minister ; a bill is brought into Parliament on a subject which interests nobody ; and it allows the undertakers to raise money. The bill contains a clause permitting an advance to be made out of the Public Loan Fund ; it is passed ; the pro- moters go to the Treasury ; and a sum of not less than 250,0001. is advanced to the Thames Tunnel Company ; not a shilling of which has over been or ever can be repaid. The House of Commons is free to commit a great folly —a Minister may have the glory of getting 250,0001.—but no one is aware that under the name of loan the money is granted. That is only one of the cases by which 250,0001. and its accumulated interest are lost to the country. Take another instance, which—and he blushed to say it—occurred while he was a Member ofParliament. That instance is Battersea Park. Certain persons, who know nothing about it, determine to buy land ; they bring in a "public" bill, with a clause enabling the Treasury to advance, and the Treasury does advance, 150,0001., under arrangements by which twenty years must elapse before the undertakers can repay the money ; and they now owe 120,0001. of accumulated interest. From 1824 to 1840 he had a catalogue of similar instances, amounting to 1,000,000/. ; every shilling of which has been lost to the country. Yet this is the system which, accord- ing to Sir James Graham, is "administered by Lord Overstone, and lent to the country gentlemen," all for building lunatic asylums at four per cent. (Loud cheers.) Time had done that for the Public Works Loan which an indignant Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have done long ago. And while all this waste had gone on, they had not been able to screw up their courage to vote 150,0001. for a National Gallery ! What was to be done with the accruing repayments ? It would have been inexpedient to pay it over to the balances in the Exchequer ; they were large enough already ; and it would have been the same as lockingit up in an iron chest. "I must ask the indulgence of the Committee while I enter into these details. Treasury finance is a subject with which the House is not very versant, and I hope the House will not think me presumptuous in attempting to instruct them upon it. I was not born and bred a Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am one of the Parliamentary rabble—("Hear!" and laughter)—but I trust, after all the observations I have made, it will be seen that I do know something on this subject." Sir Charles Wood and Mr. Goulburn had said the repayments ought to go to reduce the debt : but the reduction of the debt does not depend on the will of a Minister; it is provided for by law ; which prescribes that one- fourth of the ascertained surplus shall every quarter be applied to reduce the debt. He had estimated his quarterly surplus at 400,000/. ; one-fourth of that every three months would be devoted to the reduction of the debt ; and thus the whole of the 400,0001. of repayment would be applied. In three years the whole sum of funded Exchequer Bills of 1,000,0001. will be liquidated, and the debt reduced by that amount. To show the wisdom of this course, Mr. Disraeli quoted the report of a Select Committee of 1822, which recommended that advances and repayments should enter into the account of income and expenditure; a recommendation adopted for six years, and then reversed in practice, but not from "any difference 0.1 (pinion" on the controverted point.

In proposing the repeal of half the Malt-duty, and terminating the system of Scotch and Irish drawbacks, Government had followed the recommenda- tions of Sir Henry Parnell's Excise Commission in 1832. They would effect a reduction of duty without disturbing the trade. The reformed system of credit—without any allowance for increased consumption—will yield the revenue 600,000/. ; reducing the loss to 1,900,0001.; which, less the Scotch drawback, would be further reduced to 1,700,0001. High authorities had also recommended him to take one-third of the stock as the drawback payable on the 10th October, amounting to 800,0001. " But why the 10th October ? " was the question of Mr. Lowe—who seemed a master in the art of brewing. Now malting ceases at the end of May, and between May and October brew- ing goes on : therefore the drawback will be payable under the most ad- vantageous circumstances, when the malting season again commences.

Mr. Lowe, a " great authority, not only here but I suspect elsewhere,"

had called him to account for saying that the Caffre war was terminated. This assertion Mr. Disraeli repeated, on the authority of information inci- dentally received in his own department with Commissariat accounts ; and be confirmed it by a direct assertion just received from General Cathcart. The House-tax was the next topic. It has been said that the House-tax has been proposed in order to enable Government to carry the repeal of the Malt-tax : but though that was a plausible charge, a good charge to make, and one he might have used had he been in opposition, yet it was not a just charge. Here he defended himself on a personal point. He had never pro- moted " a new system of taxation " ; but Ministers did revise the system of taxation. Indeed, the revision of taxation had long occupied the Cabinet duties on tea and coffee—stamp-duties on the transfer of land,; which must soon be dealt with—the legacy and probate duties, "long neglected "—soap and paper—assessed taxes—all had to be considered. Moreover, there was the question, how far the country would accept that sum of direct taxation

necessary for any Minister who enter son a career of financial reform." Sir Charles Wood had accused him of recklessly increasing the amount of direct taxation : but it was not to be forgotten that it was Sir Charles Wood who proposed a complete commutation which would have made his House-tax larger in amount than that now proposed—(Lond cheers)—who one day pro- posed to a startled assembly to double the Property and Income tax ; when he had the ordinary Property-tax, and the Window-tax bringing 2,000,0001. "Talk of recklessness ! Why, what in the history of finance is equal to the recklessness with which the right honourable gentleman acted ? (Loud cheers.) And what was the ground on which he made this monstrous and enormous proposition ; a proposition which only the safety of the state would have jus- tified him in making ? When he was beaten, baffled, humiliated, he came forward to say that he had sufficient revenue without resorting to that pro- position. (Continued cheering.) The future historian will not be believed to be telling the troth when he says that the Minister came down nearly to double the Income-tax, and the next day came down to say that the ways and means were ample. (Renewed cheering.) But then he tells me, and not in very polished and in scarcely Parliamentary language, that I do not know my business. (Great cheering.) He may have learnt his business : the House of Commons is the best judge of that—I care not to be his critic ; yet if he has learnt his business, he has to learn some other things—that petu- lance is not criticism, and that insolence is not invective." (Continued cheering.) - Considering they had recognized the distinction between permanent and precarious income, Ministers felt justified in asking the working millions to contribute to the revenue by paying a House-tax. Sir James Graham had made a doleful and piteous appeal for "poor clerks" with incomes under 1501. a year : now, an authority whom he could not name, but who was one of the ablest inquirers on this subject, states that the class who have 3001. a year bear the brunt of direct taxation. Sir James Graham stated "that 1501. a year was exactly that point in the scale where manual labour ends and professional skill begins. You can recall to your minds the effective manner in which the right honourable gentleman stated this. (Cheers and laughter.) He showed himself, in my opinion, an unrivalled artist, when he told us that this was the point where the fustian jacket ceased and broad- cloth became the clothing. (Cheers and laughter.) The right honourable gentleman is one whose skill we must all admire; though I do not so much respect him as I greatly regard him." (Cheers and laughter.) In his in- quiries, Mr. Disraeli had alighted on an earlier opinion—"I hope I am superior to quoting Hansard and all that sort of trash "—but he had found the Civil Superannuation Bill of 1834, drawn by Sir James Graham, in which ho drew the line for poor clerks at 1001. per annum And the reading of that statute had influenced Mr. Disraeli in that arrangement respecting poor clerks in the proposed Income-tax. Alluding to the argument that the brewer, not the consumer, would be benefited by the repeal of the Malt-tax, he called to mind that similar ob- servations were made when they used to discuss " the effect of taxation on another article." "I do not care now to remember from what quarter they emanated, but the effect and object of those observations were exactly the same. Then it was, Oh, those villains the bakera! ' (Cheering and laugh- ter.) You may reduce the price of corn—you may injure the agricultural interest—you may ruin the farmers and the country gentlemen—but you could not reduce the price of the loaf to the consumer. No, the bakers took it all. (Cheers and laughter.) Oh, yes, and there were the millers. The millers were worst of all—they carried off all the reduction. (Cheers re- newed.) Well, those arguments had a considerable effect, and there was such a prejudice raised against the bakers throughout the country, that I should not have been surprised if they had been all hanged in one day, as the bakers had once been- in Constantinople. Well, here are those who wanted to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, using all the fallacies which we at least have had the courage honourably to give up.

Mr. Lowe, that high Colonial authority, objected to the emigration : the opinion of the most eminent actuary and statistical inquirer in England ex- pressed an opposite view in a letter. " The rate,' he says, ' of births and marriages has greatly increased in this country ; and I think emigration may facilitate the rate rather than impede it—the reserve of producing power which we have in this country.' (Roars of laughter.) That is a point I wish to bring to the attention of the honourable Member for Kidderminster. He has lived abroad in a country with a sparse population, and he has no idea of the reserve of producing power we have here. (Renewed laughter.) But the letter goes on—' You may infer from the fact that in the South-east- ern counties to 100 married women of ages between 20 and 45 there are 70 women of the same age—that is, from 20 to 45—unmarried, of whom one in seven bear children notwithstanding.' (Renewed laughter.) Now I have confidence in the reserve of producing power, which I think the honour- able Member, with his Colonial experience, had not given sufficient credit to us for."

Mr. Disraeli declared that he looked is great retrenchment in public ex- penditure, combining efficiency with ec)nomy in our great departments ; and he instanced a saving of 25 per cent effected by Lord Chandos in the office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and a prevention of additional ex- pense in the War Office in consequence of the Militia Bill. It would be the fault of the House of Commons if in 1854-55 the public service were not more efficient and less costly. He had been told to withdraw his budget ; and reminded that Mr. Pitt and "others" had withdrawn their budgets. "Now I do not aspire to the fame of Mr. Pitt, but I will not submit to the degradation of others.' " When a Government exists on sufferance, everything degenerates into a suggested to him an idea of the improper use to which that letter might have party question. If he could save a million to the country by administrative I been, and in fact was, applied. And they think it exhibited a reckless reforms, it would be made a partyquestion. " Yes, I know what I have to face. I have to face a coalition. (Cheers.) The combination may be suc- cessful. A coalition has before this been successful. But coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been very brief. (Loud cheers.) This I know, that England has not loved coalitions. (Cheers.) I appeal from the coalition to that i public opinion which governs this country —to that public opinion whose wise and irresistible influence can control even the decrees of Parliament, and without whose support the most august and ancient institutions are but the baseless fabric of a vision." (Deafening cheers.)

Mr. GLADSTONE rose with reluctance at so late an hour ; but the speech they had just heard demanded a reply on the moment. " And I begin by telling the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before I come to the question whether he knows his business or not, that there are some things which he too has yet to learn. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) There were other reasons, besides those of tri- viality and irrelevancy, why he should have spared us the discussion on the 'subject of emigration. (Laughter and cheers.) And I tell him that the licence of language he has used, and the phrases he has applied—(Interrup- tion)—that the phrases he has applied to the characters of public men— (Renewed interruption)—to those whose public career—(Continued inter- ruption prevented the sentence from being finished.) My wish is to keep myself—although I confess I could not hear the phrases which the right honourable gentleman has used and remain totally unmoved—to keep my- self within the bounds of Parliamentary order and propriety. (Cheers.) And I beg of you, Sir, that if in one single remark which I shall make I shall trespass beyond those limits, you will have the kindness to correct me. (Chan and interruption.) As to some gentleman—not the great party opposite, from whom I never received anything but kindness and courtesy—but some gentleman, in remote corners of the House, who is avail- ing himself of the darkness, I tell him that he must bear to hear his Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, who is so free in his comments upon others, brought to the bar of this Committee, and tried by those laws of decency andpro- priety which he —(The rest of the sentence was lost in the cheers of the Opposition.) We are accustomed to attach to the words of the Ministers of the Crown a great authority ; and that authority, as it is required by the public interest, so it is usually justified by the character and conduct of the Ministers. But the right honourable gentleman is not entitled to charge with insolence men who— (Cheers and much interruption.) I must tell him that he is not entitled to say to my right honourable friend the Mem- ber for Carlisle that he regards but does not respect him. (Cheers from the Opposition and a laugh from the Ministerial benches.) I must tell the right honourable gentleman, that, whatever he has learnt—and he has learnt much—he has not learnt the limits of discretion, of moderation and forbear- ancethat ought to restrain the conduct and language of every Member of this House, the disregard of which would be an offence in the meanest among us, and which is an offence of tenfold weight in the leader of the House of Commons." (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Passing from this painful subject, Mr. Gladstone discussed the main ques- tion before the Committee. He exposed the varying declarations of the Mi- nister and his colleagues as to the actual issue upon which they would stand or fall. He objected to the resolution either as a house-tax or a budget. For all that was apparent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might as well have proposed his tax directly he came into office. The broader objection to the budget was that its two new taxes were adroitly contrived to strike the same classes. If Mr. Disraeli had no sympathies for the "poor clerk," his sympathies for the yeoman were notorious. And what had he done ? Smitten him with three taxes—income-tax on his rental, on his profits, and a tax on his house ! As to local taxation, he had gathered all his speeches up into a bundle and pitched them into the bottomless abyss. Would the Committee support a Government which brought forward a budget without a surplus ? Talk of coalition !—where was the evidence of the coalition when, a fort- night ago, some of the Opposition gave a vote not inconvenient to the Go- vernment? This budget was the most subversive Mr. Gladstone had ever known, and he appealed against it in support of conservative and honest principles of finance. Amid the cheering which ensued, Mr. CONOLLY rose, but all was now excitement for division, and he was not heard.

The Committee divided—Ayes, 286; Noes, 305; majority against Ministers, 19.

The House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock on Friday morn- ing, till Monday next. hum LAND TENIIRE.

The debate on the Tenants' Compensation Bill was resumed on Wed- nesday, and occupied the whole of the sitting. Mr. FrrzonriALD made some complaints of the conduct of the Government respecting the treat- ment of this bill and that known as Mr. Sharman Crawford's. On the previous Wednesday, the Home Secretary had agreed that both bills should be sent to a Select Committee. But since that, Lord Derby had said Mr. Crawford's bill was subversive of the rights of property ; and Mr. Napier had written to a Dublin paper denying that he consented to allow the bill to go to a Select Committee. If they entertained that opinion, why not have opposed the bill ? But Mr. Napier was present, and did not object to its going before a Committee. The Irish Members said this was not true and fair dealing.

Mr. Nan= explained. He had not assented to the arrangement Mr. Sergeant Shee made a long speech, and he was prepared to follow him, at the sumestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the ad- journment of the debate was moved ; and after the division on that, he found Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Walpole had arranged that the two bills should go before a Select Committee. That was not the course he would have taken ; but when it was so arranged, be thought it would be a petty and paltry course on his part to rise up and object to it. So the matter stood.

After a debate on the merits of the Irish Tenure Bills, in which Mr. NAPIER, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Dnummoisn, Sir Joni( Srusturr, Lord N Viscount Mom's, and Mr. WHITESIDE engaged, the bill was read a

time ; and was referred to a Select Committee.

MAJOR BERPSPORD : DERBY BRIBERY.

Before the Budget debate began on Thursday, Mr. Gotruiness brought up the report of the Select Committee on Bribery at the Derby Election.

The Committee are satisfied that " a plan for an organized system of bribery existed in Derby at the last election" ; that Major Bereeford wrote the "W. B." letter; and that, consequent on the writing of that letter, Morgan went to Derby. The report then proceeds—" Your Committee do not think there is sufficient evidence to satisfy their minds that the arrange- ment, scheme, and object referred to in the petition, were known to and con- curred in by the Bight Honourable W. Bereeford; but your Conimittee are of opinion that the equivocal expressions of that letter ought at least to have indifference and disregard of consequences, which they cannot too highly censure."

On the motion of Mr. GouLaume, the evidence taken before the Com- mittee was ordered to be printed.

POOR-LAW ORDER.

Sir J. Titorxorn, in reply to a question put to him on Wednesday, stated that the Poor-law order of the 25th of August has been rescinded, and an amended and modified order has been substituted for it. That modified order, he expected, would be in possession of the Boards of Guardians to which it related in the course of the present week.