posed to repair that injustice by laying upon property a new tax amounting to not less than 2,000,000l. a year. (Opposition cheers.)

He hoped that Mr. Gladstone would, as others had done before him, retain his position and correct his measure. (Laughter.) It sometimes is represented that gentlemen on Sir Edward's side of the House are indifferent to all taxes that do not oppress themselves; he rejoiced that upon this occasion at least they could triumphantly rebut that charge. It might be true that some had thought it their duty-and he believed correctly thought-to vindicate the claims of British industry upon the part of the farmer. It was something of the same principle that they would defend now in the case of the British tradesman-(Cheers, and laughter from the Government side of the House) because they believed that the rights of industry are invaded whenever they tax at the same rate the precarious earnings of labour and their own hereditary possessions. There had been, he believed, some vague intimations of a dissolution in case this measure should be lost. He, and those with whom he acted were quite ready to encounter such a calamity. He could not pretend to judge how many gentlemen, the representatives of towns, might be disposed to vote against this resolution. He could not doubt their honest motives if they did; but, if they did not, and if the threatened dissolution occured, let them go back to their town constituencies, canvass them on behalf of the Income-tax, and tell those whose sole fortune was their toil and skill how they had been opposed by

those selfish aristocratic countrygentlemen of England who were the supporters of Lord Derby's Administration. (Cheers.)

Mr. Evelyn Denison declared that, after listening attentively to the speech of Sir Edward Lytton, he was at a loss to know whether he wished to continue the Incometax in an amended form, or to put an end to it altogether? For himself, he thought this was the first time since they had embarked on the sea of the Income-tax that they had seen land—the first time that there had been any fair and reasonable prospect of coming to an end of the tax. He applauded the compensations of the budget, and was determined to support it as a whole. The country would feel, as the House must have felt, that a great mind is engaged in its affairs. The people would know how to appreciate such rare intelligence and truthful honesty.

Mr. Booker, representing an agricultural constituency, felt the greatest dismay at Mr. Gladstone's plan, which offered no relief to owners or occupiers of land, whose case he said was made out by Mr. Gladstone himself, when he showed that agriculturists are paying 9d. in the pound, while others pay but 7d. At that te, agriculturists have been mulcted of 10,000,000l. during the last ten years, and would be mulcted of 3,000,000l. more if this proposition were carried. Now, they had no desire to shrink from the competition to which they had been subjected, but they asked to start even in the race. With regard to the manufacturing and commercial community the proposal placed them in an improper position. He claimed on their behalf that there should be a marked difference be

tween precarious and permanent income. The agricultural community regarded the tax on successions" with horror:" it would "go further towards the ultimate dismemberment of the empire than any scheme hitherto devised;" it would "slowly but surely break up the great landed aristocracy of the kingdom." ("Hear, hear!" and laughter.)

Mr. Hume expatiated upon the inequalities of the present scheme of the tax, the defects of the system of assessments, and the abuses existing in the collection, and eulogised the merits of what is termed the "actuaries' plan." He meant to regard the Budget as a whole, and as such he approved of it, especially of the legacy duty, which was its great charm. He concurred in the extension of the Income-tax to Ireland, and in the proposal with regard to the assessed taxes, because they interfered with labour; and in the repeal of the soap duty, because it induced to the health and comfort of the working classes.

Colonel Sibthorpe had always opposed the Income-tax, and should continue to do so. However good in time of war, the tax was unwarrantable in a period of peace.

Mr. Fagan felt compelled reluctantly to oppose the proposition of Mr. Gladstone. He argued that Ireland, just recovering from her embarrassments, could not be justly charged with the Incometax; that the Consolidated Annuities ought not to be considered in relation to this question; that England had been largely the gainer by the remission of duties concurrent with the imposition of the Income tax; that if imposed at the eleventh hour, Ireland would pay more than her share; VOL. XCV.

and that it would drive still more emigrants across the Atlantic. He further contended, that the extension of the tax to Ireland would be inconsistent with the Act of Union, which stipulated that Ireland should contribute to the general taxation only in a certain proportion, which had already been exceeded.

Mr. Buck dwelt upon the sufferings of the agriculturists, and wondered Parliament should be asked to renew the Income-tax, which he said "had crept into the House under a false pretence." He declared his opposition to every part of the Budget.

Mr. Blackett, approving the Budget as a whole, regretted the omission of the timber duties-that no amendment was made in the machinery for the collection of the Income-tax, and that its extension was not accompanied by the electoral franchise.-On the other hand, Mr. Knightley, taking the Budget as a whole, disapproved of it;-agreeing with Mr. Gladstone's premisses, he demurred to his conclusions.

Mr. W. Williams combated the arguments of Mr. Fagan, and approved of the Budget in its entirety.

Mr. Maguire replied to Mr. Williams. Ireland had been told she might cultivate her manufactures; which, from the time of "hook-nosed William" downwards, England had done her best to destroy. She was in a worse position now than in 1842: then she exported 93,000 quarters of wheat and 2,358,000 quarters of oats, in 1851 she only exported 44,000 of the former, and 1,141,000 of the latter. Was it a sign of Ireland's prosperity that no less than 8,700,000l. worth of property has [F]

changed hands in the Encumbered Estates Court?

Mr. Warner warmly approved of the Budget, and defended the Irish aspect of it.

Mr. Newdegate attacked the whole Budget, and denied that upon Mr. Gladstone's own showing there was any necessity for continuing the Income-tax. He opposed the legacy duty upon real property, which taxed a man at a period when he was least able to bear the burden. He excited much laughter by describing the remission of the soap duty as "another boon to Manchester." He would like to know when these boons to Manchester were to end? For the last eight years we had been doing nothing but legislate for Manchester. (Cheers from the Opposition.) He considered that the Budget involves another blow at the agricultural interest." (Laughter from the Ministerial benches.)

Mr. Monckton Milnes, comparing this Budget and the last, preferred the present. He regretted that the discrimination between fluctuating taxed incomes would not be obtained in renewing the Income-tax, but should not, on that account, oppose one of the greatest experiments of financial revision ever proposed by a Minister of the Crown.

Sir W. Jolliffe said, if ever there was a Budget proposed which made free trade more impossible than ever, by a system of taxation incongruous with its principles, it was this Budget.

Mr. Drummond denied that the legacy duty would, as Mr. Booker had suggested, break up the aristocracy; it was nothing more than a tax upon elder brothers; the aristocracy of France had been

broken up by younger brothers in the National Convention. With regard to the Income-tax it was not fair to object to it as an unpopular impost; it was the substratum of a scheme for creating a machinery by which the national debt might be ultimately reduced.

Mr. Muntz said it was with regret that he opposed the Budget, because it contained a great deal of which he approved; but he could not support so oppressive a tax as the present Income-tax-a foul blot upon the Budget, which he advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to amend.

Mr. Stanhope argued against the inequalities of the Income-tax in its incidence upon land, and he protested against imposing a further tax upon land of 2,000,000l. a year, without taking into consideration its peculiar burdens.

Mr. J. Ball felt that the secret cause of the opposition to the Budget was, that it was a great step towards the equalisation of the taxation of the country, which recommended it to him. As an Irish Member, he had satisfied himself that the effect of the proposed measures upon Ireland had been misrepresented, and he explained the grounds of his belief, that Ireland was not unfairly, but was, on the contrary, favourably treated in the Budget.

Mr. Grogan questioned the accuracy of the data whence Mr. Ball had drawn his conclusions.

The debate was then adjourned to the 28th of April, when it was opened by Mr. Cobden in a speech of considerable length. He made use of one of his old arguments, that if the military expenditure had been kept down to the 10,000,000l., which he would appropriate for that purpose, the

agriculturists would not have had to complain of extra burdens. He took pains to show that if gentlemen on both sides would be extravagant, they must be so at the expense of property, and not of commerce. He wished to impress upon the House that successive remissions of indirect taxation were inevitable, and the question was, how were they to be met? There was nothing more unjust, or inequitable, or demoralising in the Income-tax than in Customs or Excise duties; but he thought Mr. Gladstone had overrated the difficulties (which he admitted to be greater than he had anticipated) in the way of modifying and mitigating the inequalities of the tax. Unmodified, however, as it was, the other parts of the Budget not only went far to redress the inequalities of the Income-tax, but presented a bold and honest proposal; and, looking at the tax, coupled with the compensatory portions of the Budget, -the legacy duty upon real property in particular-he was ready to take them with both hands, as a whole. He approved of lowering the line of exemption to 100l. as a wise measure; and he justified the extension of the tax to Ireland, upon the principle he had always advocated, of equal legislation, accompanied, as it was, by a very large and beneficent boon, almost an equivalent for the tax. Mr. Cobden then proceeded to criticise some of the subordinate features of the Budget-the duty on licences, the advertisement and newspaper stamp duties; and expressed his sincere hope that the Budget which he believed had been generally accepted by the country-would, in its main provisions, pass the House.

Mr. Serjeant Shee, under feelings of irritation produced by Mr. Cobden's speech, attacked him and Mr. Ball for presuming to lecture Irish Members on their duties in that House as members for the United Kingdom; and he argued that Ireland had been an immense loser by her connection with England. No independent Irish Member could vote for the Budget as it stood.

Mr. J. L. Ricardo objected that Mr. Shee endeavoured to separate the interests of England and Ireland. He frankly confessed that, although he had taken part in the outcry in favour of the adjustment of the Income-tax, yet, after hearing the evidence before the Committee on the subject, he now thought that any adequate adjustment would be tantamount to the abrogation of the tax altogether. He was for direct taxation, the proper and equitable principle, and it was for this reason he voted for the Budget, which contained, in the duty upon successions, the foundation of a system of direct taxation.

Mr. French condemned the Budget as it regarded the interests of Ireland. He believed the only object in reducing the tea duties was to secure a market in China for English goods. He showed that the Budget would impose taxes upon Ireland of three times the value of the boon to be conferred upon her, an injustice to his constituents, he should resist it to the uttermost.

Mr. Bellew contradicted this view, and believed the Budget would be a great boon to the tenant farmers of Ireland; the Incometax would fall upon the class best able to bear it.

Mr. Sandars, speaking from the Opposition benches, said he was about to vote differently from those

with whom he usually acted, but, taking the Budget as a whole, he thought it a great, bold, and statesman-like measure. He concurred with Mr. Cobden, that the feeling in the West Riding of Yorkshire was strongly in its favour.

Sir F. Baring rejoiced that the amendment had been brought forward, because it involved the whole principle of the Budget, and did not lead to a vote upon small details only. He was glad that the Government had taken the bold step of laying down as a principle that the Income-tax was to be abandoned, and had taken measures for that purpose, and thought they had acted wisely in not taking immediate measures. It was asked, what security there was that this tax would be abandoned in 1860? We had, first, the pledge of the Government, and means were provided to the extent of 2,770,000l., leaving only 1,700,000l. to be met. He did not doubt, therefore, that the Income-tax might be relinquished in 1860. He was not, however, prepared to extend this tax, condemned as a permanent tax, to parties who had not hitherto paid

it. Was it wise to place a tax, admitted to have a demoralising influence upon the higher classes of tradesman, upon the lower? He objected likewise to the extension of the tax to Ireland. If it was thought that Ireland ought to be taxed, it would be wiser to impose some other tax than this, which was not only demoralising, as in this country, but required in Ireland the creation of a machinery for its collection. What was the compensation offered to Ireland? The Consolidated Annuities, the abandonment of which, after the report of the House of Lords, he

could not regard as other than a concession which Ireland might claim. He then compared the result of the Budget as regarded England and Ireland, showing, according to his calculations, an enormous balance of advantage in favour of the former country.

Lord Lovaine argued against the Budget generally, and, in particular, against the legacy duty upon land.

Sir

Mr. C. Fortescue confined himself to the subject of the extension of the Income-tax to Ireland. F. Baring, he said, had failed to convince him that the scheme of the Budget bore unfairly upon Ireland. He could not make up his mind to refuse to lay upon that country a fair and equal share of the Imperial burden, that she might have a right to share in Imperial privileges.

The Marquis of Granby opposed the continuance for seven years of a tax which was unfair, unequal, and unjust, and insisted that, considering the local burdens and other incidents attaching to the land, it was neither fair nor wise to impose a legacy duty on real property concurrently with the In

come-tax.

Sir C. Wood recommended members of the landed interest to accept the Budget as a whole, and not to vote for an amendment which made their case worse, creating a difference against the land. Arguing the question as a landlord, he maintained that the present Budget was more beneficial to the land than that of the late Government. Sir Charles entered at much length into demonstration of this position, and rectified certain misapprehensions respecting the amount of the legacy duty which would fall upon the land.