The Duke of Rutland said his objections to the Bill were that he doubted the existence of a surplus. He thought also that other taxes ought to be repealed before the duty on paper, and that the form in which the Bill came before the House was objectionable. In the present condition of affairs in Europe and America, when it was impossible to say how long peace might be preserved, it was most inopportune to abolish the duty on paper, especially in the state of warlike preparation which was going on in France and England. Objecting strongly to the form in which the Bill had been sent up to the House, he declined to accede to Lord Granville's suggestion of withdrawing the motion.

The Earl of Derby said that, in spite of his high opinion of the Duke of Rutland's judgment and character, he could not concur with the practical conclusion at which he had arrived, although he agreed with him in regarding the Bill as objectionable in substance and in form-in substance, because he thought that, if a surplus existed, there were taxes pressing heavily on the poorer classes which had a preferential claim for repeal over the paper duty; and in form, because the Bill was sent up in one measure in order to preclude the House from exercising its judgment upon it. Briefly alluding to the reasons which had induced him to follow the course he had pursued last year on this question, and to the effect of the decision of the House in contributing to reduce the deficiency of the present year by 1,250,000l., the amount of the retained paper duty, he proceeded to discuss the Budget for the

present year, and pointed out the means by which Mr. Gladstone had replaced the deficiency of the previous year by a surplus, expressing his surprise that the House of Commons had been cajoled by so transparent a fallacy. He did not dispute the existence of the surplus, but the question was, how could it be best employed? He was ready to admit that the paper duty was an objectionable tax, and one which, if there were an overflowing exchequer, ought to be repealed, but its repeal would not work the marvels which were prophesied, and would only benefit "editors of penny newspapers," and the makers of bandboxes. The whole question was, however, a financial one, and as the House of Commons had, by a small majority, decided on the repeal of the paper duty, he did not wish to take the responsibility of advising the House to set themselves in opposition to that decision, especially as the positions of the question in the last and the present year were widely different. Lord Derby next examined at some length the right of the Lords to alter a Money Bill, contending that they had that right, and supporting his arguments by quotations from various authoririties, of whom Mr. Fox was one, but he considered that it was unwise for either House to push its privileges to the utmost, and to manifest an unconciliatory spirit. Adverting to the mode in which the House of Commons had dealt with "Tack Bills," he admitted the right of the Commons in that particular, but objected strongly to the manner in which it had been exercised in proposing to take away a permanent tax and

Lord Monteagle defended the accuracy of the estimate which he had stated last year. He declined to ask their lordships to reject the present Bill, but recommended them to accept it with caution, lest a principle should be admitted which would unduly restrict the rights of that House. He anticipated a probable necessity for increased taxation next year, in order to meet the expenditure of the country; and, in that case, he said, the loss of the paper duty would be severely felt.

The Duke of Rutland said that in deference to the wishes of his noble friend, to whose judgment he owed much respect, he should withdraw his amendment.

The opposition being thus removed, the Bill was read a second time, nem. con.

Thus, after much discussion and a close and keen struggle, extending over a considerable part of the Session, the financial measures of the Government were at length brought to a completion. Before dismissing the financial transactions of this year, which occupied an unusually large share of the attention of Parliament, it will be proper to notice some attempts on the part of private members of the House of Commons to effect a remission of particular taxes; but as in each case the opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these experiments in finance was sustained by a majority of the House, a brief notice of these discussions will be sufficient. It will be observed that they were all prior in point of date to the Financial statement. The

was

only motion of this kind which obtained a partial success one made by Mr. Hubbard for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of assessing and collecting the income-tax, and whether any mode of levying the same so as to render the tax more equitable could be adopted. In adverting to the objectionable features of the tax, Mr. Hubbard dwelt upon its inequality more than upon its nquisitorial character, which, he thought, had been exaggerated. Premising that an equitable tax was that which taxed a man according to his means, he assumed that there were but two classes or categories of incomes that should be subjected to the taxnamely, the result of investments of capital, and salaries and industrial incomes, the fruit of personal labour, and therefore of a precarious nature. He then examined in detail the different descriptions of property included in the various schedules, and specified the abatements he proposed to make in the assessment of the tax upon certain classes of property, deducting one-third in the case of industrial and precarious incomes. He noticed the immense amount of fraud in the evasion of the tax, which he attributed in a great degree to its inequality, persons smarting under the injustice of the tax endeavouring to do justice to themselves in their own way. He admitted that there would be a loss of revenue by the adoption of his proposal, but his firm conviction was that, the measure being one of justice, the diminution under Schedule D would be less than might be anticipated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the proposal for a committee of inquiry into the subject, and more especially the particular nature of the plan submitted by Mr. Hubbard, compelled him to object to the motion. Mr. Hubbard proposed that a separate rate of tax should be laid on the different schedules, and the House could not vote for the motion without attaching a provisional sanction to the plan. This was a very grave demand, and the Government would not be justified in assenting to the motion unless they were prepared to say, at least, that they saw no objection to the plan. Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to discuss its merits and details, reminding the House that the abatement of the tax to one man was virtually the taxation of another; that the relief of Schedule D would throw an additional burden upon Schedule A. Mr. Hubbard, he observed, professed to aim in his plan at curing injustice and getting rid of anomaly, and he proposed to do this by making an uniform deduction of 33 per cent. from industrial incomes, but no deduction in favour of the fundholders, the great mass of whom were small annuitants. The object which Mr. Hubbard had in view had been repeatedly abandoned as impracticable, and the principle, setting class against class, was fraught with social danger. He recommended the House to put a negative upon the motion.

The motion was, however, carried against the Government by 131 votes to 127.

In pursuance of this vote a Committee was appointed, which

sat for a considerable time, and received much evidence, but the report made being unfavourable to the scheme proposed by Mr. Hubbard for modifying the tax, no result followed the inquiry.

On the same evening on which Mr. Hubbard carried his motion, a resolution was moved by Mr. W. Williams, affirming that "real property should be made to pay the same duty as was paid on personal property." Mr. Williams enforced the same arguments in support of this proposition as he had adduced on former occasions.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was sorry that his views upon this occasion were entirely opposed to those of Mr. Williams, whose motion would lead to a belief that all property was placed in two categories, real and personal, and that real property did not pay probate duty, and personal property did. But he had omitted to notice that a large amount of personal property paid no probate duty at all, passing under settlement. Various burdens were borne by real property from which personal property was exempt; and to subject the former to probate duty would lead to a great anomaly. He then showed the numberless inconveniences and difficulties, as well as the hardship, which would attend the collection of a probate duty upon landed property, if it were practicable, and he was not able to say that it was. He was of opinion that the proposal was not warranted by justice, and that, if it was, the difficulty of giving it a practical form and the amount of hardship it would inflict would be such that it

would not be advisable to proceed in the path Mr. Williams had pointed out.

Upon a division, the motion was negatived by 167 to 51.

On the 5th of March, Mr. Dodson, one of the members for Sussex, moved the following resolution:-"That the maintenance of any duties upon hops is impolitic, and that, in any remission of taxation or adjustment of financial burdens, provision should be made for the removal of such duties." He entered into minute details as to the hop cultivation, its expense, the precariousness of its returns, the difficulties and anomalies attending the collection of the duties, as well as the injurious effects of the tax upon both the growers and the public. The hop duties he regarded as an excrescence of the malt duty, and he believed that if they were abolished the increase of the malt duty would, in a few years, repair the loss of the hop duties, while the consumer of beer would benefit by the disuse of those ingredients which were now used as substitutes for hops. He insisted that the tax, which had been condemned by high authorities, and was costly in collection, could not be put upon a sound and satisfactory footing, and he implored the House not to be led away by the refined ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir Brook Brydges seconded the motion, which was supported by Sir John Shelley, Lord Pevensey, Lord Holmesdale, and Lord Harry Vane.

Mr. Bright thought the hop duty very objectionable, but he considered the paper duty as having a prior claim to remission,

and, until that was taken off, he was not prepared to support the resolution.

Mr. Disraeli, upon grounds of financial prudence, and the necessity, at that time, of husbanding the resources of the country, could not assent to the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was bound to acknowledge that the hop duty had been discussed with very considerable ability; but the question did not turn on the merits of the duty or the policy of continuing it as a tax. He admitted its peculiar demerits, and that it was levied upon an article of raw produce; but there were other objections which had been urged against the tax-as that it was costly in its collection-to which he could not assent. Observations had been made on the fickleness of the hop plant; but it must not be supposed that the distress in the hop districts would be put an end to by the abolition of the hop duties. In point of fact, the hop cultivation was a lottery, the duty acting as a deduction from the prizes and an aggravation of the blanks; but the duty was not the main cause of the distress. He objected to the motion on the ground that it was an abstract resolution on a matter of finance. The failure of the paper-duty resolution ought to be a warning against the adoption of more resolutions of this kind. There were other duties the remission of which had been called for, and, if this resolution was agreed to, other members would come down with abstract resolutions, and he asked whether the result of such a process, in which so many pledges would remain unredeemed, would