number, including tea, there are 123 articles which we propose to set altogether free from duty, involving a loss of 53,000l., and 133 more articles which we propose to reduce, involving a gross loss of 70,000l., but which, with increased consumption, may be taken at 52,000l. The effect of this will be to create a simplification of the present system: but at the same time, I must draw attention to the fact, that the changes of ad valorem duties into rated duties will call for greater specification; and the resolutions I shall lay on the table will enable the House, when they come to the consideration of them, to assist the Government in deter mining whether in any of the cases I have stated it will not be better to adhere to the ad valorem duty. All I now say is, that if the proposal does not wear the appearance of simplicity that may be desired, it is because the change tends to multiply specification. The effect of these various changes in the customs-duties, as applicable to the year 1853-54, will be to produce a gross loss of 1,338,000l., but a loss which, we trust, will again be reduced by increase of consumption, to 658,000l. The remission of taxes we propose as applicable to 1853-54 will cause a gross loss in the Excise of 786,000l., or a net loss of 771,000l.; in stamps, a gross loss of 417,000l., or a net loss of 200,000l.; in post-horses, 27,000l.; in customs, altogether, the gross amount of 1,338,000l., or a net loss of 658,000l.: thus showing a remission of taxation for the present year, of 2,568,000l. ; and a loss incurred by the revenue, after allowing for the degree in which the remission will be placed by increased consumption, 1,656,000l." (Cheers.) The state of the account for 1853-54 stands thus-surplus in hand, 805,000l.; new taxes, 1,344,000l.; loss from taxes remitted, 1,656,000l.; surplus, 493,000l. Mr. Gladstone then showed that Government are not faltering about the Income-tax, but that when they propose to place the Parliament in a condition to remove it at a future day, they make this proposal on a basis of safe calculations. But first, he presented the balance-sheet for 1854-55:additional charge 1.027,000l.; additional income 1.307,000l.; giving a clear profit which will justify the remissions of indirect taxation, the entire amount of which would be 5,324,000l. But as former remissions had recovered themselves, he assumed that what had happened before would happen again, and he thought that when the time or the expiration of the Income-tax arrived, these taxes will be found in amount very nearly what they are now. The amount of the Incometax, with the additions, will be 6,140,000l.; towards this, increased permanent sources of income would give 2,540,000l.; then the reductions in charge on the three and a quarter per cents. would bring in 621,000l.; and assuming the annual reduction of the charge of the debt (80,000l. for the last 11 years) would continue, that would give 640,000l. in the eight years up to 1861. These items added together give a total of 3,813,000l. falling in of the long annuities in 1860, will operate a relief of 2,146,000l., and the two totals would give an amount of no less than 5,959,000l. against 6,140,000l., the total amount of the Incomeof tax in 1860, available at the expiration of that period, should the The 66 plan of the Government be adopted. Thus, if the Committee has followed me, they will understand that we stand on the principle, that the Income-tax ought to be marked as a temporary measure; that the public feeling that relief should be given to intelligence and skill, as compared with property, ought to be met, and may be met; that the Income-tax in its operation ought to be mitigated by every rational means compatible with its integrity; and, above all, that it should be associated in the last term of its existence, as it was in its first, with those remissions of indirect taxation which have so greatly redounded to the profit of this country, and have set so admirable an example-an example that has already in some quarters proved contagious to the other nations of the earth. These are the principles on which we stand, and the figures. I have shown you, that if you grant us the taxes which we ask, the moderate amount of 2,500,000l. in the whole, a much less sum than that for the present year, you, or the Parliament which may be in existence in 1860, will be in a condition, if you think fit, to part with the Income-tax. I am almost afraid to look at the clock shamefully reminding me, as it must, how long I have trespassed on the House. (Cheers.) All I can say in apology is, that I have endeavoured to keep closely to the topics which I had before me that it will be admitted that we have not sought to evade the difficulties of the position; that we have not concealed those difficulties either from ourselves or from others; that we have not attempted to counteract them by narrow or flimsy expedients; that we have prepared plans which, if you will adopt them, will go some way to close up many vexed financial questions, which, if not now settled, may be attended with public inconvenience, and even with public danger, in future years, and under less favourable circumstances; that we have endeavoured, in the plans we have now submitted to you, to make the path of our successors in future years not more arduous, but more easy and I may be permitted to add, that while we have sought to do justice, by the changes we propose in taxation, to intelligence and skill as compared with property-while we have sought to do justice to the great labour-community of England by furthering their relief from indirect taxation, we have not been guided by any desire to put one class against another; we have felt we should best maintain our own honour, that we should best meet the views of Parliament, and best promote the interests of the country, by declining to draw any invidious distinction between class and classby adopting it to ourselves as a sacred aim to diffuse and distribute the burdens if we must, and the benefits if we can, with equal and impartial hand and we have the consolation of believing, that by proposals such as these we contribute as far as in us lies, not only to develop the material resources of the country, but to knit the various parts of this great nation yet more closely than ever to that throne and to those institutions under which it is our happiness to live." The right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat, saluted with a burst of enthusiastic and protracted cheering. Several members asked questions with regard to particular portions of the statement, and Mr. Hume lamented that his property-tax scheme, which would yield nine or ten millions a year, was not adopted by the Government. Mr. Ball expressed his surprise that the agriculturists were not relieved by the repeal of the malt-tax. Upon the whole, the reception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's propositions was very favourable. The formal resolution, with which he concluded, was then agreed to. CHAPTER III. The discussion on the Ministerial propositions begins on the 25th of April. -Sir E. B. Lytton moves an Amendment to the first Resolution-His Speech-The debate is continued for four nights-Speeches of Mr. E. Denison, Mr. Booker, Mr. Hume, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Buck, Mr. Blackett, Mr. Knightley, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Warner, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Monckton Milnes, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Stanhope, Mr. J. Ball, Mr. Grogan, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. J. L. Ricardo, Mr. French, Mr. Bellew, Mr. Sanders, Sir F. Baring, Lord Lovaine, Mr. C. Fortescue, the Marquess of Granby, Sir C. Wood, Mr. G. H. Moore, Mr. J. M. M'Gregor, Colonel Harcourt, and others; Lord Jocelyn, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Cairns, Sir W. Clay, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Lowe, Mr. J. Butt, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Conelly, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord John Russell - The Amendment is negatived by 323 to 252-Other Amendments are moved, and some hot altercations arise amongst the Irish Members-Mr. Lawless moves to exempt Ireland-In the course of the debate which follows, great confusion and interruption is caused by a charge of corrupting Irish Members made against the Ministry by Mr. Duffy-Mr. Lawless's Amendment is rejected-Captain Maguire's charge against the Government of breach of contract with the Irish Members occasions some further angry discussion-Mr. R. Palmer moves an Amendment—In the debate which follows he is supported by Mr. Miles, Mr. Buck, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Spooner, Sir W. Joliffe, Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Manners; and opposed by Captain Scobell, Mr. Phillips, Colonel Harcourt, Mr. Bright, Sir T. Ackland, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord John Russell— Upon a division the Amendment is negatived-Mr. Vansittart proposes an Amendment-Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Banks, and others speak in support of, and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bright, and Sir J. Shelley against it— Upon a division the House supports the original Resolution-A Resolution is then moved by Colonel Dunne, Mr. Gladstone, Sir J. Pakington, Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. Scully, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Ball, and Mr. O'Connell take part in the discussion which ensues—It is rejected by 194 to 61; as also are other Amendments moved in Committee by Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. Frewen, Dr. Michell, Mr. Walpole, Mr. J. Butt, Mr. Spooner, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Blackett, and others-The Third Reading is carried after a short discussion by 129 to 55Clauses moved by Sir F. Kelly and Sir A. Campbell are rejected, and upon the motion of Mr. Gladstone, five new Clauses are added.-In the House of Lords the Earl of Aberdeen moves the Second ReadingHis Speech-The Earl of Derby states his objections to the Bill-After some discussion, in which Lords Portman, Berners, and Brougham, the Marquesses of Clanricarde and Lansdowne, and the Earl of Wicklow take part, the Bill is read a Second time-Lord Brougham offers some opposition to the Third Reading-Amendments are proposed by the Earls of Wicklow and Lucan, and a Debate ensues, but the Amendments having been rejected, the Bill is passed. N the 25th of April, the debate on the Income-tax propositions of the budget began; the House having gone into Committee of Ways and Means, upon the resolution being read, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton moved as an amendment in lieu of it, that these words be inserted after the word "that" in the first line, "the continuance of the Income-tax for seven years, and its extension to classes heretofore exempt from its operation without any mitigation of the inequalities of its assessment, are alike unjust and impolitic." He admitted that there was much in the budget worthy of the high reputation of Mr. Gladstone and of the approbation of the country; and the Income-tax might be retained to work out the Minister's financial scheme; but it need not remain as it was, and the country might have all the good things in the budget compatible with the reform of the tax. He asked the House to remove the unpopular features of the tax, and to terminate it at the earliest possible moment. That was the intention of the late Government; but Mr. Gladstone proposed to retain its unpopular features, and continue it to the latest possible moment. Particular interests would not wait until Mr. Gladstone had developed his scheme, but would forestall his balance sheet before 1860, by propounding reductions of their own -the full repeal of the advertisement-duty, and the stamp-duty on newspapers, or the malt-tax. Mr. Gladstone based his calculations on the bold assumption that his remissions would by 1860 replace themselves. No doubt the reduction of duties on articles of large consumption has a tendency to compensate any temporary loss of revenue; but this principle obviously has no application to the duties on soap, in amount 1,126,000l., and customs 53,000l., making a total of 1,179,000l. of taxes absolutely abolished, and, therefore, not subject to the commercial law of reproduction. Nor does this law apply to duties on articles of luxury; nor was he sure that the smuggler would not receive the augmented receipts arising from the augmentation of the spirit duties. One-third, then, of the assumed surplus is altogether visionary. Sir Edward anticipated that prosperity would augment the Income-tax receipts, and make the Chancellor of the Exchequer unwilling to give it up; and that its immoral influence as a premium on evasion would rot the character of the English tradesmen. He treated as absurd the concession of the Irish Consolidated Annuities, a partial debt, as compensation for the general imposition of the Income-tax on that country. He criticised the distinction drawn by Mr. Gladstone between land and trade as baseless, since bad debts might compensate the peculiar charges on land; but the distinction would hold good as regards the fundholder. Arguing that the Income-tax presses severely on intelligence and skill as compared with property, Mr. Gladstone pro |