THE BUDGET. House of Commons, April 2.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 558, 20 August 1851, Page 3

THE BUDGET. House of Commons, April 2.

The house having resolved itself into a committee of supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward hia new budget. He : said Several weeks, sir, have elapsed since I put into your hands the motion upon which I am about to ca'.l for the opinion of the house to-night. Time haa been afforded to me to reconsider the proposal which I then made to the house? and I have also the advantage of those observation and censures, which, with no sparing hand, have been bestowed upon me. We have had the advantage too of hearing from Lord Stanley, the course of financial policy he is piepaied to pur&ue. He is prepared, as far as possible, to reduce the income tax at once, and to extinguish it altogether as soon as an accruing suiplus will allowhim. And he is prepaied to aid that operation by the imposition of a duty upon the importation of foieign corn. The proposals which I shall submit to the house, have for their object the comfort and the health of the labouring poitioti of our community; further to reduce the duty upon articles of unpoit, both ai tides of conbumption vi.d the raw mnterml. It is for the house and the country to decide which policy will be most contributive to the welfare of this great empiie. [After contending that a surplus should alwajs be had, if po-sible, to assist in liquidating the national debt, Sir C. Wood proceeded.] It is held that ihe present condition of the country is such as to justify complaints of the pressuie of taxation. Now those who seek yet nioic relief, believe that the ie&ult of our recent legislation hus been niatei hilly conducive to the well-being of the country : that they aro better off and ncher and moie able to pay than they weie befoie those taxes which remain for thorn to pay. When such arguments proceed fiom the mouths of gentlemen who agiee with me that the country has denved benefit |iom our legislation, n is au utter condemnation of the policy we hare

pursued. We wore told, and as I think rightly tnld eight or ten years ago, thnt that which pressed upon the energies, cramped ihp industry, and prevented tli» accumulation of cnpilal in this country, was not the amount of taxation paid into the exchequer, but the indirect effect which w.is produced by the existence of monopoly and piotection. Tho>e monopolies, those protective duties, have been mainly removed, and the community at lar^o derived a great benefit from that. It follows therefore, not as a matter of probability or of opinion, but of absolute demonsti.ition, that the pressure of taxation must be infinitely li-sa now (ban it was ten years ago. I know there is nothing so distasteful as to tell people they are not in distress when they believe themselves to be so ; but I call upon those who agree with me to do their duty heie and elbewheip. Since I last addressed the bouse, I have had an oppoi - tunity of re-considering the statement which 1 then submitted to it. When I sat down to consider v\ hat proposal I should submit, I did not consider that which would produce an effect upon the country. I sat down to consider the taxes which weie most objectionable, and productive of the greatest misery. The reducti in of those taxes I proposed to the house. But bon. frpntlemen should remember that when they wish for anything; large and striking, that the irroat protective duties and monopolies have been removed. The government of Sir Robert Peel reduced the protective duties upon timber and corn. The pies^nt government l»»ve reduced the protective duties on sugar, and repealed the navigation laws. Now it is rather an unreasonable complaint on the pact of the country that when all the giants are slain we cannot kill them. (Langb'er.) There remain, no doubt, matters quite as objectionable, to the extent they go, but they are to a smaller extent, and act within a more limited circle. Hut, in strict accordance with the principles which dictated the removal of large protective duties, we bhould attend to the removal of those wbich are equally mischievous, though within a considerable narrower scale. 1 may be permitted to make one remark to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house, who call for a large reduction of taxation, or any reduction whatsoever. Jfthpy expect any large reduction, thpy must not perppumlly chII for minor reductions. We have been called upon for a sacrifice of £12,000 upon attorney's blls ; £120,000 upon advertisement duty; upon the newspaper stamps ; and jEI OO,OOO upon I) ish spirits. Now every hundred thousand pounds employed in this way diminishes the power which any Chancellor of th** Exchequer can have of giving a git»at i eduction upon any other point. If the modern system is to prevail, that any surplus, however small, is at once to be exp"iidpd in the reduction of some minor objects of taxation, neither I, nor any one who fills this pWe, can ever do that which the house and the country demands of him, make a considerable reduction of the direct taxation. If it be the wish of the house that tins should be done, they must co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and enable him to accumulate such a surplus as in some future year may enable him to do that which they require— -(bear). If an accumulative surplus is at once to be dissipated, nothing great and satisfactorily can ever be done. The principle upon wbich 1 have always advocated and proposed commercial and financial measures to this house, has been to do that which appeared to me most beneficial to the great mass of the population of this country. I have never turned right or left out of that way to benefit, one or another. The labouring and working population may not be, and are not, to a great extent, represented in this house, and they aie, therefore, tbe most peculiar objects of solicitudeto the government — (cheers). For their s.ikps I advocated the reduction of duties upon the raw material. It was not to put more profits into the pockets of our manufacturers, or wealth into the purses of our merchants, but because I believed that by the free importation of the raw material employment would be given to the labourer and cheap clothing to his family. We hail given them food and clothing cheap. There remained another matter of importance to them, their dwellings. For their sakes 1 carried last year the repeal of the duty on bricks — (cheeis and laughter, and counter cheers from thp opposition benches), 'lhis mny be u matter of indifference to hon. gentlemen, but it is no matter of indifference to me or to tho«e people. It 13 for their sake that I propose this year to reduce the duties on foreign timber, and I know not that more can be done for the present. There lemainsone more class —that large population crowded into dark alleys and narrow streets in our large towns. We have evidence in abundance that stunted growths, deformed limbs, broken constitutions, and weakened intellect are the consequences of a deprivation of nir and light. Wp determined aa soon as it was in our power tint we should remove, so far as taxation contributes to produce these effects, anything which might impede the improved sanitary condition of the labouring poor. Sir, I am not ashamed of having made that proposition ; and I feel thtit I should have sluunk fiom pei forming my duty if'l had not made it ; and whatever fault may be found with the proposals that I have mule, this, at least, will be conceded by those who have opposed roe, that to this extent I have endeavoured to remove every obstacle and souice of complaint. And whatever may be the result in other respects, this, at least, I hope we may be enabled to carry thiough the British House of Commons. 1 shall feel then that having contributed to cheapen their food, to cheapen their clothing, and to give them other benefits, making their dwellings aa cheap as we can afford to do, that we shall have well closed our career — if we do close it then— if we bestowon the labouring population of our towns the unrestricted enjoyment of the light and air of heaven. I did not remind the house of the complaints made here, night after night, of the adulteration of coffee by the admixture of chicory and other materials. I am prepared, and I have proposed to meet the evil in tke most legitimate manner, by reducing the duty and thereby reducing the price of the imported aiticle. (Hear, hear.) Then I hold that the reduction of duty on timber is in perfect consistency with all sound commercial and economical principles! lam quite aware that a loud demand has been made for the unconditional repeal of the window-tax. 1 think it is enough for ma to say that the amount of the window duty is £1,856,000, and the probable surplus £1,892,000. And if, therefore, I assented to that rpquest, I would leave myself a margin of £4-0,000. And if I add to the expenditure the least demand for the Kaffir war, 1 should be wilfully creating a deficiency, and no man, I think, would justify me in that. But I say, further, that it would not be acting justly to the community if I did. That which prpsses on the labouring population is not the amount of the window-tax, but the mode in which it is levied. It is in reference to the number of windows, and not to the value of the house, that the ground of complaint has been in all the statements that have been made to the government. If I substitute for the present amount of the window tax a tax assessed on the value of the houses. I shall have met all the demands grounded on sanitary considerations, jind I shall at the same time, have imposed a burden so different in its pressuie from that which now exists that there would be just reason for its giving satisfaction. I quite admit now that thp fnirest mode, and the mode most consistent with principle in dealing with this question, is to impose an uniform duty on both o'd and new houses. My former proposal was deficient in that uniform principle which I th'nk is the mode most just to adopt. I propose, therefore, altogether repe-ding all reference to the number of windows, getting rid of every objection that can be urged on sanitary grounds and affording great relief to all, or to nearly all parties — I propose to take an uniform rate of 9d. on dwelling houses (old add new), and a rate of 6d. on all farm houses and houses with shops. I proposed to exempt from taxation altogether, all houses not exceeding £20 in annual value, and that exemption I intend to retain. I thus give a relief from taxation altogether to the extent of £1,150,000. The tax which 1 propose to retain will amount to i. 720,000, instead .of £"1,852,000; and ■ that which I propose to retain will not be paid by the labouring population, by the artizan, operative, working man, or by whatever name he pleases to designate himBelf. I Uke it off from the people, and leave it on property. If hon. gentleman behind me who advocate direct taxation on the property are dissatisfied, 1 know not what tax will satisfy them. There are about 3,500,000 houses; 3,100,000 will be totally exempt from the t.ix ; and the tax that I propose will be paid by about 400,000 of the most valuable houses in the country. Sir, in the first proposal which I made with regard to coffee and timber, I do not think I can make any change. I propose, theiefore to adhere to the proposition which I made for the 1 eduction of one quarter of the duty on colonial coffee, and for the removal of a protective duty to the full extent on foreign coff»e, and for the reduction of duty on timber by one-half, that is, on sawn timber fiom 20s. to 10s., and on hewn timber from 15s. to 7s. b'cl. The losses from the reductions, as we have seen, are about £400,000 ; and to this, adding the loss upon the remission of the window -tax, that leaves the total loss from the remissions which I propose £ 1,530 000. This will leave me a permanent surplus. 1 aui ashamed to tall it a surplus— but it will leave a permanent maigin for the ensuing year of £356,000. I feel that I should not be justified in proposing any further reJuctious than those ]tist named. The honoiable baronet cvncluded b) refermg to the

proposition about ti b» rmde bv M» Feme*, tb it iho mn plus revenue should I" 1 applied vi reduction of the income tax. Flo strongly deprecated that proposal, contending that thoucli 'lip income lax was at Iml proposed for a tempoiaiy purpose, it w as iene» ed in 18 1 > for the purpose of eual'linc: that course of liberal commercial policy to be. pursued which lind contiibuU-d s> essetittallv to the employment and the comforts of die people. That policy had not yet been fully carnod our. He (^ir Cl).)i!<"?) wouhl aim at doing so; and he earnestly trusted ih it the house would not sanction a proposition which went to relieve the rich at the t- xpt-n-p of the poor, hy not only dp^iovuia; all present ( ndeivour and futuie chance of furth- r icd'ioiniT taxafon for Ihfir benefit— the sdienie for ,ib/)lishing the income-tax lu'in» based upon a u'uewed duty on corn —but bv depriving- them of the benefits winch they Rlreifly pnjnjed. Mr. nei'riescomphiii"d that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had enlarged upon topics calculated to provoke debate. lie liad nttark<d the general policy of the paity wi»h whom Mr. I Femes acted. The statement of 'the Chancellor oi the Kvchequer was an annou'icpmont to the liou«.e and to the country that the income tax was to be perpetu.il. And in reference to that announcement Mr. Ilerues begged emphatically to state, that «hould the pioposal not be rpsisled now, the incomp tax would assuredly be perpetual. The motion of the Clnnoellor of the Exchequer would be agreed to ■pio f ni ma ; but on Monday the question would be fully nigued, and the decision of the house formally taken.