reduce the number of houses paying tax at all from 500,000 to 400,000; exempt, for the first time, shops, victuallers' houses, and houses used in the occupation of land; and diminish taxation to the amount of 1,136,000l.—for the tax he would retain would be about 720,000l. instead of 1,856,000l. In reference to the incidence of the tax, Sir C. Wood said-"It is true there are some few cases in which even under this proposal a house will be raised in taxation; there are some cases so anomalous, that it is utterly impossible to deal with them on principle. I find, for instance, that in one street in Liverpool there are two houses which have eight windows, paying 18s. 1d. and assessed at 1301. a year: a proof of the inequality of the Window Tax, and of its utter unfairness in reference to value." The better streets, where the value was high, would not be relieved to the same extent as those in which the value is depreciated. Houses in the country, where the value was less in proportion to the number of windows, would be relieved more than those in the fashionable parts of town. The old-fashioned houses of country gentlemen would be relieved-he could not speak as to new houses. The houses of most country clergymen would be relieved. A relief would be extended to farmers paying between 2001. and 300l. a year, which would not be afforded by any reduction of Income Tax; for farm-houses upon farms of 2001. a year paid Window Tax, but there was no Income Tax upon a rent of less than 3007. a year, whereas, by the present proposal, in almost every case there would be a very material reduction of the tax paid, and in most cases of this amount

a total exemption, because very few farm-houses, where that was the amount of rent, would be assessed at 201. a year or upwards.

The effect of the alterations Sir Charles explained by a mass of instances. "In Marylebone and St. Pancras, the amount at present paid for Window Duty is 92,000l. ; under my plan it will be 50,000l., being a reduction of 42,000l. In Regent Street the present payment is 22007.; it will in future be 19001., being a reduction of 300l. In Finsbury Square the present payment is 7251.; the future will be 250l., being a saving of 4751. In Portman Square the present payment is 7401.; the future will be 610., reduction 1301. In Belgrave Square there will actually be an increase of 107.; the present payment is 9907., the future will be 1000l. The gentlemen who reside in Belgrave Square, however, will probably have houses in the country also, and the reduction of the tax upon those will indemnify them for the slight increase in the duty payable on their town houses. Taking the two things together, they will be as much benefited by the alteration as those who do not live in so fashionable a quarter as Belgravia. It is difficult to get any return showing the operation of the tax in an exclusively rural district. I have, however, procured a return of 42 of the best houses-those paying the largest amount of Window Duty-in six counties, and I find that the effect of the change I propose will be the reduction of the duty payable by them from 2040l. to 5671. In Liverpool the reduction will be from 19,600l. to 95001.; in Manchester, it will be from 30,000l. to 15,000l.; in Birmingham, from 18,400l. to

the Exchequer; he rejoiced at this result, because it not only indicated the prosperity of the country, but reinforced the proposition he now made. He would assume the data of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with this differencethat he expected a larger surplus, believing that, instead of 1,892,000l., it would turn out 2,200,000l. or 2,300,000l. He assumed, further, that Sir C. Wood meant to continue the Income Tax as it now existed. This was the first legitimate occasion, Mr. Herries remarked, of considering this tax under the aspect of a permanent impost: it had originally arisen out of the financial mal-administration during the five or six years prior to 1840; but Sir R. Peel originally proposed the tax expressly for special and temporary purposes; and Lord John Russell-who had previously proclaimed "the inequality, the vexations, and the frauds" inherent in this tax-in 1848 asked for its continuance solely on the ground of "the almost unparalleled difficulties" of the crisis. Mr. Herries cited strong denunciations of the tax by Mr. Labouchere, Lord Howick, Sir F. Baring, and Sir C. Wood, and called upon the Government to state the grounds upon which, without necessity, with a surplus revenue, they proposed the continuance of a tax admitted to be full of inequality, vexations, and fraud, and which ere could be no doubt would, in olation of the obligation which e House had contracted with e country, be made permanent. then stated what would be effect of affirming his motion. uming the real surplus for at 2,200,000 he thought Fo-sevenths of the Property XCIII.

Tax might be remitted, which would be a relief to the extent of 1,550,000l., far greater than the removal of the Window Tax, and it would afford a prospect of the ultimate extinction of an impost denounced and stigmatized by those who now recommended its continuance.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that his proposal to continue this tax, which he disliked as much as ever, was perfectly consistent with the policy of Sir R. Peel, which it was intended to carry out to its full extent. Almost the whole of Mr. Herries' argument, he observed, had proceeded upon the supposition that the proposal which he (Sir Charles) had made was for a permanent Income Tax, whereas he had never said a syllable to that effect. He did not think it safe that a tax of this kind should be placed upon the footing of an annual vote; but Mr. Herries was not precluded from proposing its reduction next year. He showed the difficulties attending the modification of the tax, and the injustice of applying it, as Mr. Herries suggested, to Ireland; and then entered into details as to the policy he had pursued in reducing duties upon articles of consumption and upon industry; observing, that the more popular a tax was the more productive it would prove. Under the Income Tax, the revenue had, by a wise legislation, greatly im proved; and by a perseverance in this legislation-the removal of taxes more objectionable than the Income Tax-the improvement of the revenue would be accelerated. It was in furtherance of this theory of legislation that he had proposed the reduction of the duties upon coffee and timber, and [G]

84001. In the town represented by my noble Friend who takes so much interest in this question (Lord Duncan, Member for Bath), which I am afraid is not so fashionable as it used to be, the relief afforded will be in greater proportion than in the cases I have already referred to, for the charge for duty will be reduced from 23,000l. to 75001. The greatest amount of relief will be afforded in the case of those houses which have a larger number of windows or openings than is proportionate to their annual value." The grand result would be, that of the 3,500,000 houses in the kingdom. 3,100,000 would be exempt, and the tax levied only on 400,000 of the most valuable houses.

The combined loss from the reductions on coffee and timber (100,0002.) and from the windowduty (1,186,0007.) would be 1,536,000l.; and this would leave a margin of surplus amounting to only 356,000/; or, with the Window Tax due for the current halfyear (568,000l.), a surplus for that year of 921,000l. towards any unforeseen demand.

In conclusion, Sir Charles referred to the Opposition tactics on the Income Tax. He admitted that the tax was imposed to meet a deficiency; but it was continued for a different purpose-to enable an improvement to be made in financial legislation, still unaccomplished, by the removal of impolitic restrictions on industry and

commerce.

This statement was received by the House with considerably more approbation than the original budget. Mr. Herries, however, complained that the motion respecting the Income Tax, of which he had given notice for the 7th in

stant, should have been forestalled by anticipatory objections; but he hoped the House would pause before it consented to make that tax perpetual, as was involved in the propositions before them. Mr. Henley remarked on the contrast between the high-flown principles announced respecting public credit and the maintenance of a surplus. with the reservation of such a miserable sum as 300,000Z.

After some sarcastic remarks by Mr. Disraeli on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having forgotten his sympathy with the agricultural interest because he was laughed at for the insignificance of his boons, the House agreed to the pro formá resolution of continuing the Income Tax and the Stamp Duties in Ireland as moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On the 7th of April the report on this resolution by the Committee of Ways and Means having been brought up, Mr. Herries raised the question of the continuance of the Income Tax by proposing a resolution in the following terms:

That the Income and Property Tax, and the Stamp Duties in Ire land, were granted for limited periods, and to meet temporary exigencies; and that it is expedient to adhere to the declared intentions of Parliament, and, in order to secure their speedy cessation, to limit the renewal of any portion of those taxes to such an amount as may suffice to provide for the expenditure sanctioned by Parliament, and for the maintenance of public credit."

Mr. Herries expressed his great satisfaction at the published statement of the year's revenue, the result of which had exceede calculations of the Chance

the Exchequer; he rejoiced at this result, because it not only indicated the prosperity of the country, but reinforced the proposition he now made. He would assume the data of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with this differencethat he expected a larger surplus, believing that, instead of 1,892,000l., it would turn out 2,200,000l. or 2,300,000l. He assumed, further, that Sir C. Wood meant to continue the Income Tax as it now existed. This was the first legitimate occasion, Mr. Herries remarked, of considering this tax under the aspect of a permanent impost: it had originally arisen out of the financial mal-administration during the five or six years prior to 1840; but Sir R. Peel originally proposed the tax expressly for special and temporary purposes; and Lord John Russell who had previously proclaimed "the inequality, the vexations, and the frauds" inherent in this tax-in 1848 asked for its continuance solely on the ground of the almost unparalleled difficulties" of the crisis. Mr. Herries cited strong denunciations of the tax by Mr. Labouchere, Lord Howick, Sir F. Baring, and Sir C. Wood, and called upon the Government to state the grounds upon which, without necessity, with a surplus revenue, they proposed the continuance of a tax admitted to be full of inequality, vexations, and fraud, and which there could be no doubt would, in violation of the obligation which the House had contracted with the country, be made permanent. He then stated what would be the effect of affirming his motion. Assuming the real surplus for 1851 at 2,200,000l., he thought that two-sevenths of the Property

Tax might be remitted, which would be a relief to the extent of 1,550,000l., far greater than the removal of the Window Tax, and it would afford a prospect of the ultimate extinction of an impost denounced and stigmatized by those who now recommended its continuance.

He

The Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that his proposal to continue this tax, which he disliked as much as ever, was perfectly consistent with the policy of Sir R. Peel, which it was intended to carry out to its full extent. Almost the whole of Mr. Herries' argument, he observed, had proceeded upon the supposition that the proposal which he (Sir Charles) had made was for a permanent Income Tax, whereas he had never said a syllable to that effect. did not think it safe that a tax of this kind should be placed upon the footing of an annual vote; but Mr. Herries was not precluded from proposing its reduction next year. He showed the difficulties attending the modification of the tax, and the injustice of applying it, as Mr. Herries suggested, to Ireland; and then entered into details as to the policy he had pursued in reducing duties upon articles of consumption and upon industry; observing, that the more popular a tax was the more productive it would prove. Under the Income Tax, the revenue had, by a wise legislation, greatly improved; and by a perseverance in this legislation-the removal of taxes more objectionable than the Income Tax-the improvement of the revenue would be accelerated. It was in furtherance of this theory of legislation that he had proposed the reduction of the duties upon coffee and timber, and [G]