sufficiently justified by the exigencies of the moment, but having no reference to policy, and announcing to the country no clear, distinct, and decided views on the part of Parliament with respect to the proper mode of dealing with this great instrument of taxation. There are many arguments, no doubt, tending very much in favour of the permanent maintenance of the Income Tax as a source of ordinary revenue. Its effects are enormous, and I do not know any tax by which in the same degree as by the Income Tax you get at the vast reserved incomes of the country. You get at them, it is true, unequally and roughly, for you refer it in a large majority of cases pretty nearly to the conscience of each tax-payer to decide what his standard of payment shall be; but still you get at them, and in a greater degree than by any other engine of taxation that I know of. On the other hand, the House is aware of the mode in which the Income Tax operates on the lower class of incomes, though its effect in that way was very much mitigated by the measure adopted last year; and, no doubt, those who desire to see the permanent maintenance of the Income Tax, have reason to congratulate themselves on the operation of a measure which relieves the impost of much of the hardship with which it pressed on the lower classes of incomes. Nevertheless, it still bears severely on what may be called the non-elastic incomes of the country, and occasions a good deal of trouble at this period of the year, when the new assessments are made. The inquisition into private affairs is a serious matter; and the use of a war-tax in time of peace, by which a portion of our last reserve is expended, is a subject well deserving the notice of the House. To the opinion of the inequality and injustice of the Income Tax which is maintained by some, I do not accede; but it cannot be denied that that opinion is widely spread among many large classes; and that, no doubt, is a matter to be considered in reference to any scheme of taxation. As to fraud, it is needless to enter on that topic; it is a sad and difficult subject, and I am afraid that the extent to which encouragement is given to fraud through the imposition of the Income Tax is very formidable."

Another point of view in which the Income Tax should be regarded with disfavour by financiers, was in regard to its tendency to encourage a too liberal expenditure. The duty of economy was nevertheless obligatory on Parliament, though the trade of the country was in a highly prosperous state, and the condition of the public finances flourishing. There was a great mass of pauperism dependent upon public support, and large numbers of poor in our populous towns were in a state bordering on starvation. It was still, therefore, the bounden duty of the House to adopt that principle of careful retrenchment to which it had been pledged by a Resolution moved by Lord Palmerston, and carried in that House two years ago. Mr. Gladstone, however, did not then ask the House to remodel or to abolish the Income Tax, but to address itself to the reduction of that tax; and therefore he proposed to take a penny

in the pound off the Income Tax. The ultimate loss by this reduction would be 1,200,0007., and the immediate loss would be 800,0007. This would leave a surplus of 430,0007. Adverting to the duty on fire insurances, he said that the Government did not think that any large reduction of that duty should interfere with the other reductions in taxation he had proposed. The duty on fire insurances was 1,700,000l., two-thirds of which was levied on property, and the remainder on industry or stock in trade: and it was proposed to reduce the duty from 3s. to 1s. 6d. so far as stock in trade was concerned. With a view to test the principle of recovery of the revenue after reduction of duty, which had been so strenuously asserted, the reduction would take place from 1st July. The financial result of this would be a gross loss of 283,0007. The result of the proposed reductions would, on the whole, be a loss of revenue, which would amount to 2,332,000l.; while the relief from taxation would reach to above 3,000,000%. The surplus would remain only at 238,000. The right. hon. gentleman concluded by saying: "The plans we have proposed cannot be compared in point of magnitude with the remissions and changes of some former years, but they are, as we think, a contribution towards the accomplishment of the great purposes which Parliament has taken in hand. Taking the proposals of a particular year, they may be likened to a stone that is cast by a passing traveller upon a heap. Each separate contribution is small, but the general result is that in the course of time a heap is raised sufficient to commemorate some signal action or some great man. It is in that sense that we submit to Parliament these propositions. We believe them to be good, and we trust they will meet with your acceptance, and be taken as a pledge on our part, to co-operate with the Legislature in carrying further forward those purposes, the partial accomplishment of which has already done so much for the strength and security of England, for the comfort and happiness of the people, for the honour of the age in which we live, and for the hopes which we entertain for the future." The right hon. gentleman then moved the usual formal resolution.

His financial statement met with a very favourable reception. Public expectation had, indeed, in a great measure, anticipated the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was known there was a surplus, and the appropriation of it by a reduction of the Income Tax was looked upon as highly probable. It was surmised also that the Fire Insurance Duty would undergo either a partial or total repeal. It was further expected that the Sugar Duties would be altered, but as to the particular form in which they were to be remodelled, the secret of the Government was well kept. This was the only portion of the Budget which incurred any serious criticism. Mr. Crawford, one of the members for the City of London, expressed on this occasion his dissent from the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and intimated his intention to take the sense of the House upon this part of the financial

propositions. Mr. Morritt declared his resolution still to proceed with his motion for the abolition of the Malt Duties, and Mr. Henley expressed his dissent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument founded upon the repeal of the Beer Duty. He believed that a reduction of the duty on malt would lead to an increase in the consumption of that article. Mr. Whiteside expressed his regret that Mr. Gladstone persevered in his injudicious policy of increasing the Irish Spirit Duties. He considered that the consequences of that measure had been very disastrous. The revenue from this duty had fallen much short of the anticipations of the Minister-illicit distillation was never more rife in Ireland than at the present time, and the adulteration of spirits was carried to such a pitch, as to be seriously injurious to the health of the people. It might be said that the only effect of the increase of duty had been to destroy the health of Her Majesty's subjects. Mr. Maguire seconded these arguments. After some further discussion the resolutions proposed by the Government were adopted without division.

The favourable reception which the Budget met with in the House of Commons was fully sustained in other quarters, and the financial measures received a very general approval on the part of the public. Indeed, the success of Mr. Gladstone's policy, though it had been for a time severely impugned, was now very widely acknowledged, and it was felt that the Government of Lord Palmerston owed much of the favour which it enjoyed in the country to this branch of its policy. So far as related to the reduction of the Income Tax, the satisfaction was universal, and this portion of the financial scheme received the assent of Parliament almost without discussion. Upon the question of the Fire Insurance Duty there was not the same unanimity. Many thought that the better course would have been not to deal with this impost by a half-measure, but to reduce it boldly at once, and trust to the recuperative effects of a lowered tax upon the revenue. Mr. H. B. Sheridan, who had in a former Session carried in the House of Commons, a Resolution condemnatory of the existing duty, now gave notice of his intention to ask the assent of the House to an amendment on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition, by which, instead of a reduction of 1s. 6d. per cent. upon stock in trade, there would be a reduction of duty generally to 18. per cent. upon all descriptions of property insured. On moving this amendment in a Committee of Ways and Means, on the 21st of April, Mr. Sheridan entered into a variety of calculations, to show that his proposal of a uniform reduction would not affect the surplus required by Mr. Gladstone upon his Budget. To this motion the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered an earnest opposition. He contended that the proposed plan would be totally useless for any efficacious reduction of the Fire Insurance Duty. It would infringe the principle approved of by the House in apportioning the receipts and expenditure of the country, and would sweep away the surplus

altogether. As to his own proposal, he said there would be no difficulty at all in rating stock in trade. Mr. Disraeli approved of the principle of the amendment, and should vote for it, but should prefer in the event of its being adopted, to leave out the sum of 1s., thereby only pledging the House to the principle of a uniform reduction of duty. After some discussion Mr. Sheridan's motion was rejected by 170 to 117, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition was adopted.

Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in his financial statement, expressed himself in a very decided manner, as opposed to any proposition for the removal or reduction of the Malt Duty, on behalf of which measure there had been of late symptoms of an incipient agitation in certain districts, the advocates of the agricultural interest in the House of Commons were not deterred from bringing the question before Parliament, and on more than one occasion during the Session the policy of taxing so highly this essential ingredient in the national beverage was brought under discussion. Upon the order of the day for going into consideration of the proposed reduction in the Sugar Duties being moved, Colonel Barttelot interposed an amendment "that the consideration of these duties be postponed until the House had had the opportunity of considering the expediency of the reduction of the duty upon malt." He stated that the object of his motion was to induce the House to apply the part of the surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had been appropriated to the reduction of the duties on sugar, to a decrease of the duty on malt instead. He contended that this was one of those taxes the diminution of which was calculated to be beneficial, not merely to a particular class, but to the whole community, by causing the production and circulation of cheap and wholesome beer. The only argument for the retention of the duty was that it was available for the purposes of revenue; nothing could be said in favour of its justice or general expediency.

Mr. Cobbett seconded the motion, and said that he was opposed to the Malt Tax on the ground that it was a question of hardship on the labouring classes, inasmuch as it operated to double the price of one of the necessaries of life to them. As regarded the general community, it would be more beneficial to them to have the duty taken off malt than to have a reduction of a penny in the pound of the Income Tax. He supported the motion as a step towards the total abolition of the Malt Duty.

Lord R. Montagu opposed the motion, and said the Malt Tax produced about 6,000,000l. a year, whilst the whole value of beer consumed in England and Wales was 60,000,0007., so that the tax amounted to one-tenth of the cost, and no one expected that the benefit of the repeal of the tax would go to the consumer, and even if it did, that benefit would not amount to one farthing per pot. It was said, "Let us consider the labourer; let him have good beer to drink." By all means let them consider the case of

the labourer, but let them not at the same time forget the labourer's wife and children. The labouring man liked his pot of beer, and no doubt it was good for him, but his wife and children liked their tea and sugar as well; and the appeal ad misericordiam ought to include them also. Then the hon. member for Oldham saidRepeal the Malt Tax, and the labouring man will brew his own beer, and drink it at home. Why should he do so? Would there not be the same advantages as before in favour of the large maltster or of the large brewer? Where were the capital and the machinery to come from? Would the labourer drink it at home? Hon. members could not suppose that beer was the only inducement to the labourer to go out. He liked company as much as those who met in gilded saloons. He liked to talk his politics, smoke his pipe, and enjoy a good fire-perhaps to be away from a scolding wife at home. He (Lord R. Montagu) was far from being opposed to all repeal of the Malt Tax, if he could clearly see his way to it; but here an agitation had been got up by persons who made the matter as much their business as those who attempted to cure people by quack medicines, and all the petitions were nearly in the same words.

Mr. Cobden suggested that the mode in which the question was raised, namely, by placing the Malt Tax and the Sugar Duties in antagonism, precluded many hon. members, himself among the number, from coming to a decision upon its merits. Looking at the matter simply as one that affected the consumer, he owned that he should prefer abolishing the Sugar Duties, for after the tax on bread there was no tax on which there might be so much said to justify total repeal as that on Sugar. As an advocate of free trade, however, he was bound to say that, if the operation of the Malt Duty was such as to impede the processes of scientific husbandry, and interfere with the desirable rotation of crops, then it was a question that appealed to the House in the interest of the producer as well as to the consumer. Upon this point he had made inquiries among some of the most intelligent farmers, and he was informed that the tax really acted as a prohibitory duty, and prevented the farmer from using malt for feeding his stock at particular seasons. He took this evidence as conclusive, and thought that the farmer stood in the same position in regard to barley from which malt.was made, as he had done in reference to hops before the Hop Duty was removed. He asked for free trade in malt, then, as a complement to the free-trade policy which had been in force for the last few years. As a consumer's question he had no doubt that the repeal of the Malt Tax would be a great relief to the poorest classes of the community, to whom it would be the means of affording much solace and contentment. Even if the tax were abolished, it would not entail the loss of the entire amount of revenue derived from that source, for there would be an immediate and vast increase of income from other taxes. But in order to succeed in this object they must also turn their attention to a policy

D