The Sun. — London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

IMPEIt IA L PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LO If DS, March 3. The House met to-dav at Five o'clock. Lord FEVERSH AM presented a petition from Whitby against the repeal of the navigation laws. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from a society of Odd Fellows, praying that they might be placed on the same footing as friendly societies. IRISH POOR-LAW UNIONS. Earl FITZWILLIAM rose for the purpose of Roving for certain returns relative to the appoint ment of paid guardians in Ireland, when The Marquis of LANSDOWNE begged to inter rupt the Noble Earl for the purpose of saving the time of the House, by stating that the papers for which the Noble Earl was about to move would in the course of a few days be laid upon the table of the House. Earl FITZWILLIAM, notwithstanding what had fallen from the Noble Marquis, would persevere in his motion. He wished to have a discussion on the subject. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had no desire to avoid the discussion, but it would be more conve niently taken when the papers should be before the House. The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested that, in addition to the returns moved for, returns should be made of the average prices of food in Ireland in the respective unions. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the sugges tion of the Noble Duke should be attended to. The subject then dropped. EDUCATION. Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the Worcester Diocesan Board of Education, on the subject of the management clauses required by the Committee of Privy Council to be inserted in the trust death of schools receiving aid from the Parliamentary grants. He complained that an immediate obedience to these management clauses had been demanded from the schools. This was a new conditicn introduced into the agreement between the Government and these schools, and there certainly had been a virtual compact that no fresh conditions should be re q • uired He asked therefore from the Government that they should suspend the enforcement of these condi tions. The Bishop of WORCESTER said that there was a standing order of the Worcester Diocesan Board, to the effect that no matter of importance should be deliberated on without the members of the board re siding at a distance from Worcester being summoned. Now, in this case no such summons had been is'ued, and therefore the petition could only be considered as the petition of those who had signed it. With regard to the management clauses which were com plained of in this petition, he thought they were com plained of most unnecessarily. It would be most un reasonable to deny the power claimed from them by these clauses, and he deprecated any agitation which should seek to deprive them of that power. Lord LYTTELTON explained. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, if the public money was to be granted without the manner of its ap propriation being secured by a deed, the schools would fail in their great object. It was only of late that any thing had been heard about the exclusion of the laity from a share in the management.—(Hear, hear.) The aid given to the National Society had been upon the understanding that the clauses complained of were to be the terms of union, and that there were to be no other. The late Archbishop of Canterbury admitted the pro priety of these clauses, after an amendment which the com mittee had proposed, to the effect that clergymen were to have the exclusive interference " with the moral and religious instruction of the children." It was said that these clauses had prevented the increase of schools; he could only say, however, that the number of appli cations from the clergy themselves was very great, and that they were constantly increasing. If any question arose upon a religious subject, the clergyman decided without reference to ithe laity. Was it to be said, then, that this was not enough for the clergyman to claim, and that the layman was to be deprived of the power in the management which he was justly entitled to?—(llear, hear.) He considered this was a grievance without a foundation; but when the next grant was made, the matter should be again taken into consider ation. He could not, however, admit the principle of the clergy having the power of overruling the opinions of the lay managers .—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of CHICHESTER said there was no wish on the part of the clergy to exclude the laity from co operating in the management. The Earl of ILCHESTER said a few words which were quite inaudible in any connected form in the gallery. The Bishop of OXFORD regretted that this discussion should have taken place, considering it altogether un timely. As it had been introduced, however, he begged to add his assurance that there was deep and wide spread jealousy, alike among the laity and among the clergy of the Established Church, on the subject of these schools. It was felt, and felt as a'great injustice, that while dissenting schools were allowed t.) be conducted on dissenting principles, Church schools were only allowed to be conducted on principles half church and halt dissenting. As the minutes ot Council were now constructed there were no means ot settling the disputes respecting the managers of schools. He had himself suggested that a reference, in such mat ters, should be open to the bishop of the diocese, with appeal to the archbishop, or reference open to the laity as well as to the clergy; for he, in common with all the clergy whom he had heard speak on the subject, had no jealousy whatever of the laity, but were anxious to give them a full share in the superintendence over the ma nagement of these schools. 'rho Bishop of ST. DAVID'S considered that the alarm and jealousy to which his Right Rev. Brother had referred were not altogether without foundation. There was reason to apprehend that sufficient power was not given to the Church schools to conduct their education on Church principles, yet he isid not believe that the alarm was so general or so vivid as was imagined by his Right Rev. Friend. The Earl of DELAWARR was anxious to inquire whether a printed report of un interview between the Noble Marquis and some members of the dissenting body was correctly reported ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, from his seat, said he would reply presently. Lord STANLEk . thought it would have been more convenient had the Noble Lord replied at once. The principle involved in this discussion appeared to him to be a most material one. The question substantially was if any Government should be entitled to alter, at its pleasure, the system on which Church schools were to be governed. It was stated that there was nothing novel in the conditions now imposed. But how had it ever been laid down before that with the clergyman of the parish and proprietor of the estate there should be as sociated a body of small farmers or any others who were subscribers to the schools? How had it ever before been declared that without compliance with such a condition no grant should be made for a school frogs public funds 7 This was not merely a new condition ; it was one now for the first time ever heard of'. But it was not of this ho so much complained as of the uncertainty under which the clergy and laity laboured in consequence of those suddenly varying regulations proceeding from an anomalous authority. He confessed, for his own part, that he thought the great fundamental error was in giving too great a latitude to a board so constituted as the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, and he thought that the evils arising from the working of the system were every day increasing. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was from no reluctance that he had not risen before, but merely to save their lordships the trouble of hearing two speeohes. Ho argued that there was no necessity for any alarm whatever at the regulations of the Educational Com mittee; and ho denied that there was any novelty in their Erinciple. With regard to the report to which the Noble arl opposite had alluded, the report was in substance correct. After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON in reply, Ole petitition was ordered to lie on the table, and the House adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eight. DOUSE OF COMMONS, Match 3. The SPE kKER took the Chair at ten minutes before Pour o'clock. BEWD LEY ELECTION. The following Members were appointed a Com mittee t o t ry the merits of the Bewdley Election : Lord Visc.)unt Castlereagh, Mr. W. llutt, Mr. W. Tatton Egerton, Sir T. B. Birch, and Mr. W. B. Wrightson (chairman). Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Dundee against the con tinuation of the income-tax. Colonel TYNTE presented a petition from Bridge water to the same effect. Mr. F. MACKENZIE presented a petition from Perth against th e admission ofJewsintO Parliament. presented Mr. Alderman SIDNEYa petition from Stafford against the continuation of the income. tax. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from Cord wainers' Ward against the continuation of the income tax, and praying the Government to reduce their expenditure. Mr. CARDWELL presented a petition from Liverpool, praying for a more equitable adjustment of the income. tax. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from Leek, in Staffordshire, against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Mr. ROBINSON presented a petition from Poole against the income-tax. Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD presented a petition from Birminzham to the same effect. Mr. P. O'CONNOR presented a petition from Mr. Robect Owen, stati ng th a t th e G overnmen t was acting up on an erroneous pr i nc i p l e, and praying that. some course might be adopted to educate and en lighten the people. Mr. \V. MILES presented a petition from Frome against the establishment of diplomatic relations with Rome. • Mr. covvAN presented petitions from Edinburgh against the continuation of the income-tax, the in crease with Rof themy and navy, and diplomatic relations om army Mr. W,AKLEY presented 'petitions from St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. Georg e the Martyr, against the income-tax, and in, favour of a tax on real property. Also, a petition from Tavistock, com plaining that no medical members were to be appointed under t e Health of Towns Bill to the looal boards. THE SUN LONDON, Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from WhiJpy against any alteration in the navigation-laws, and also against the continuation of the income-tax. Mr. lIINDLEY presented a petition from New tastie-under-Lyme against the continuation of the income-tax; also a petition from Spalding against any increase of the army and navy. Mr. J. B. SMITH presented a petition from Stir ling against the income-tax. BEWDLEY ELECTION. The Members appointed to try the merits of the Bewdley election were sworn at the table and ordered to sit to-morrow at 11 o'clock. Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from St. Pancras against the income-tax. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Man chester praying fora modification of the income tax, and that a distinction might be made between income and real property. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions against the Jewish Disabilities Bill and the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. POST-OFFICE. Mr. BANKES gave notice of his intention, on Tuesday next, to move for returns of tha receipts and expenditure of the Post-office. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. In answer to a question from the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY, Mr. C. ANSTEY stated that he intended to pro ceed with the Roman Catholic Relief Bill on Wed nesday next. Mr. C. PEARSON presented a petition from the parish of Lambeth against any increase in the mili tary establishments of the country, and against the continuance of the income-tax. HARBOURS OF REFUGE. In answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the Miscellaneous Estimates would con tain an item for the grant to improve harbours of refuge. COPPER ORE. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said he understood it was the intentio❑ of her Majesty's Government to reduce the duty on copper ore, and he should be glad to know if the reduction would be extended to smelting copper. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said her Majesty's Government proposed to reduce the duty to a low figure, both on copper ore and smelting copper. IRISH LOAN. Mr. WILSON said he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, the other evening, that the hAlance in the Exchequer amounted to about eight millions. He wished to know if any portion of the Irish loan formed part of that balance ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the balance remaining in the Exchequer of the Irish loan, amounted to about a million. GOVERNMENT OF VAN DIEMEN'S LAND. Lord MAHON said the last intelligence brought from Van Diemen's Land contained an account of the suspension of the Legislature of the colony, and he should be glad to know whether that intelligence was correct ? Mr. LABOUCHERE, in answering the question, said it would be necessary for him to make a short statement to the House. In consequence of some disputes under Sir Eardley Wilmot's administration, six members of the Legislative Council resigned their seats, but upon the question in dispute, being referred to the Home Government, a decision was given in favour of the six members of the Council who had resigned, but in the meantime six other members had been appointed to supply the vacancies. When Sir William Denison was sent out he was instructed to try the effect of an amalgamation be tween the new and the old councillors, but none of the gentlemen who had been newly elected could be induced to resign. Sir William Deni son, therefore, dismissed the new Council, and re-elected the six other gentlemen who had re signed ; but upon its being referred to the Colonial-office, it was discovered that the election was irregular, and in September last a dispatch was sent out to that effect. Immediately, upon the advice of his law officer, Sir William Denison suspended the Legislative Council till he could communicate with the Home Government ; and it was trusted the sus pension would give rise to no other inconvenience than that which had already been experienced.—(Hear.) BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (IRELAND). In answer to a question put by Mr. STAFFORD, Sir. W. SOMERVILLE said, that three boards of guardians had been recently dissolved in Ireland, in addition to the 24 enumerated in the returns recently laid upon the table of the House of Lords. 5,0001. a year from rent, but the difference between them wes this—the landed proprietor enjoyed.his in come for life, and it descended unimpaired to his relations, while the physician en joyed his only during health, and a thou sand accidents might remove it altogether. His income has, in fact, no existence but through his daily exertions; and he believed it would be admitted that there was not a more dan gerous profession to be thought of than that of the medical man, and yet he was to be taxed to the same amount as the man who derived his income from no exertions of his own, and who could bequeath it to his heirs without diminution. He would take another case—that of a young man who had neither capital or income that ' he could call his own. He would take the case of a young man in a profession who was struggling for a livelihood, and many such cases there were ; where that man came under the infliction of the three per cent. tax, what was it that was taxed. It could not be said that it was his income, for he had none ; he had not established himself sufficiently to say that he had oat.. It could not said that the tax was on his capital, for he had none. No ; the fact was that the tax fell upon his industry.—(Hear, hear.) It fell upon that which the Government ought to encourage, and du all in their power to assist.—(Hear, hear). He thought if there was any class of men on which the tax ought to fall lightly, it was upon those educated men who were poor, and whore incomes of all incomes were the most precarious.—(l fear, hear.) He believed that there was no country in the world in which genius linked with poverty under went such endurances as itdid in England ; sometimes those endurances were brought to light, as in the case of the unfortunate Mr. Haydon; but he believed there were hundreds of cases that were never known to the world. In the case of Mr. Haydon, the public, when too late, did make a generous effort to repair to his unfortunate family the error they had committed and the late Minister of the Crown had the gratifica tion to recommend the family of the unhappy man to the consideration of the Crown, and the still greater gratification of alleviating in some degree, by his own beneficent act, the last days of Mr. Haydon, but he believed there were hundreds of cases in which no such steps had been taken en account of their never coming to light. It might be urged by Ministers that those who pro posed to amend the law as it at present stood might to be prepared to show them how the exiting diffi , cult ies could be overcome. In other words, before any Honourable Member came forward to make a speech upon the subject, he ought at least to be satisfied in his own mind that some scheme or other might be substituted for the one already in existence. He admitted the force of such reasons, and he was encouraged in coming forward on this occasion, because he was convinced that the difficul ties in which Ministers found themselves were nut inseperable. He was convinced that a far more equal, a far more just, and far more efficient measure might be found than the one the country was now suffering under.—(Hear, hear.) The present ine quality of the tax had never been justified, even by its proposer, except on one ground, and that was, its tempo rary character. lie had stared that, if it was intended to be a permanent measure, the country ought never to be asked to submit to it in its present shape ; but that, being merely a temporary measure, he preferred facing its difficulties for a short period to attempting the task of equalising taxation. That being the case, he thought it right to assume, that if it had fallen to the Right Hon. Gentleman's lot to make it permanent, he would have proposed some aineedments in the details. Sir R. PEEL made an observation which did not reach the gallery. Mr. HORSMAN said he could p int to various occa sions on which the Right lion. Baronet had said that the measure being merely temporary he preferrtel al lowing the inequalities to remain to facing the difficulty of equalising them. He came now to the question of whether the difficulty of equaliemg was insuperable in the case of the present Government. In their case he was fortified with arguments which he thought they would find it very difficu!t to answer—arguments furnished by themselves, and also precedents which were perhaps ut more importance. In 1845, when the renewal was pro posed, the Hon. Member for Liskeard proposed the fol lowing resolution:— " That the circumstances under which the renewal of the income-tax is at present proposed are such as to render it exceedingly improbable that Parliament will have the power of dispensing with its continuance at the . end of three years, and that it is therefore the duty of this House to taAe care that the tax be imposed in a form in which its operation shall be less unequal and inquisitorial than it Low is." On that occasion the proposal was ne,.re'y for three years, and almost every gentleman occupying a promi nent position in the House took part iu the discussion. On that occasion, the Noble Lord the present Prime Minister expressed himielt with peculiar clearaess. The following were his words:— " I have always been of opinion that inequality, vexa tion, and fraud were inherent in such a tax. It is im possible to deny its inequality, fur nu man can say that tt is equal for a person who has an income derived &eta a landed estate, or from the fut.ds, which he could leave to his children entire, is in the same position as a penult in a profession, a surgeon, or an artist, whose bread de pends upon his health and the vigour of his constitution, and who, by the loss of a limb, or a defect of eyesight, may at any moment be deprived of the means of earning any income at all. No man can say that these two Far sons were similarly situated. Neither can any person fairly deny that great vexation is inseparable from this tax. No one can deny that u person who is ngsgtd in trade, and who must ether submit to the p went de manded of him, or show all his accounts and txpose all the matters in which he is engaged to the persons ap pointed by the Government—none cto deny that such a person is not subject to very great vexation. And then, with regard to fraud and evasion—l believe no man who has been concerned in the collection of this tax will deny that his experience has ehowu;that great frauds are prac tised under this tax—that the man of the most inte grity and the most honour, and who gave his returns fairly, was subjected to the greatest imposition of the tax; while those who wished to evade the tax, either found the means of doing so, or entangled themselves and the Government in the most expensive proceedings. Such being the faults of the tax, and having heard from te Right lion. Gentleman on Friday night that they were faults inseparable from it, I might have well conceived that by different modifications, and by alterations with re: pact to uncertain incomes, and by changing particular pro visions which bore hard upon particular classes, the tax might be made more equal and less vexatious." Thus had the Noble Lord in 1845 objected to the in equality of the tax, but the Noble Lord took an objec tion of still greater importance, which looking upon the exigency of the present time, might be taken as a pro phecy. What security, asked the Noble Lord, that in two years a strong and general outcry might not be raised for its repeal, and then how was the revenue to be provided for? The Noble Lord had contended that under these circumstances the tax should be rendered as little vexatious as possible. His (Mr. llorsman'.) fear was, that the inequality of the tax tsisaseihr4eat Ilan. Gentleman itt e it reaction against direct taxation. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in the same debate expressed similar views. The Right lion. Gentleman then said, "'That with re gard to the arguments against the income tax, no at tempt had been made to answer them. It was arbitrary and unjust in its nature, and unequal in its pressure." So far for the injustice aad inequality; but on the ques tion of placing it on a more equitable footing, the Right lion. Gentleman had said, " Although the income tax might be passed by persons ignorant of its nature, yet it • could not be so mainteined; and would it not be dau• • gerous to peril the credit of a country by placing it on a basis which could not ho maintained?" Ha thought ' that those opinions showed great sagacity, and he trusted that ho would not find them altered on the pre sent occasion. lie now came to the means by which, in his opinion, the difficulties attending the permanent establishment of the inconte•tax might be surmounted. lie found that in 1845 the returns from the income-tax were as follows:--The last year of the ssriea in the re turn No. 100, was 1845, and from it 184 G did not mste rially ditler. The returns were as Poll ,we. schedule A, 2,528,7211.; B, 324,3391; C, 744,0191.; 1), 1,678,5951; E, 327,7691. Total, 5,603,4431. This being 3 per cent. on the income, represents the whole income as follows;A, 86,698,100 1; B, 11,120,200/.; C, 25,509,2001.; 1), 57,511.7001; E, 11,247,800/.; so that the whole profits under these five schedules amounted to 192,077,000/, in round numbers. Now that being the whele profits of the country — Mr. COdDEN—lncome. Mr. 1101tSNYiN—IleCalled them profits merely as a general term. Now if he could find any me ois of capi talizing these profits, it would at least help them so fir in arriving at the relative proportion+ which stiould be paid by the different schedules. Takiag Schedules A and C at 25 years' purchase, and considering 13, I), and E as life annuitants, the average value of all lives above 25, being at four per cent. with 12 years purchase, and classing farmers with trades, &c., the result would be as follows : Schedule A, at 25 years purchase, 2,167,452,500/4 schedule C, at 25 pars purohase, 637,730,0001. The other three sections lie should put down as life annuities. Taking them as worth, on the average, 12 years purchase, they would stand :—II, 133,442,400 L ; D, 637,730,0001.; E, 134,853,6001. So that calculating the incomes on realised property at 25 years purchase, and those derived from precarious sources as life annuities, we should arrive at the conclusion, that the whole capital of the cone try falling under the income-tax was 3,733,618,900/ And if they tested it by other returns and calculations which had been given of the capital of the couw.ry, they would not, he believed, find this conclusion to any material extent incorrect. his object in making these calculations was to ascertain whether they could not a: - rive at some sort of judgment as to the relative pro2or thm in which the tax should be imposed on precarious and permanent incomes. —(Hear, hear.) The present income-tax of 5,600,0001. being paid un capital in the way he had just stated, was equal to a payment of rather less th an one an d a half f a rthing in the pound of capital. Now, one and a half farthing per pound of capital was 37i farthings, or rather more than !sci. of income, or Si. 15s. per 100 L, calculating always four per cent. for schedules A and C. According to this precocious , calculati on , if t h ey too k t h e re l at i ve va l ues o f perma nent b being propertywort h 25 and years' o h r a io so u , s th p e r o o t p t e , errtya—s an n ie annuity of of 12 years' purchase, about 9d. in the pound became the fair share of the permanent property to the tax. WAYS AND MEANS. - - - The CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved that the House should go into a Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn whether it was the intention to print the whole of the evidence given before the West India Committee. Lord G. BENTINCK. said that a portion of the evidence had been expunged, and according to the general rule of the House he declined to state upon what grounds. INCOME-TAX. Mr. HORSMAN then rose, pursuant to notice, to move—" That, if the income-tax be continued, it is expedient to amend the Act, and not to impose the same charge on incomes arising from professional and precarious sources as on those derived from real property." lie felt that it was most expedient that the question should be fully settled before the House went into a Committee of Ways and Means; and the injustice attending the operation of that tax should be in some degree removed. The income tax had now taken a permanent rather than a tempo rary character, and it was therefore their bounden duty to face the difficulty at once, and to set at work to endeavour to devise some means to bring the tax into a more business-like and just form. The inconveniences to which they had hitherto submitted, had been borne under the pros pect of their being of a temporary nature. But those temporary inconveniences now arose to the character of positive grievances, when all the inequalities of that tax were to be saddled upon them for their lives. The more objectionable any tax was in itself the greater reason there was why the House should endeavour to make it as just and as little onerous as possible, and without any defect in their legislation. It had been admitted by every writer upon the subject, that an income tax was the last tax which should be imposed upon any country ; it was a tax abhorent to the feelings of the people, and every Minister should defer it to the moment of the very last emergency, and being so deferred, when that moment of emergency did arrive, when the people were threatened with the invasion of a foreign enemy, then they would forget their personal feelings in a ge neral desire for the public safety, and when their shores were invaded, then in the hands of a wise Minister this tax would be a more formidable weapon than any system of warfare or of national defences that could be devised. Until a late period they would have thought as little of a Minister in time of peace pro posing this tax as they would of a Minister in a time of war disbanding their army. However in the year 1842, the Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) established that tax, bringing along with it certain proposals, and enforced it by such cogent reasons, and held out such promises of great public advan tage, that it carried the House and the country along with it, and the proposition was most cordially ac cepted, and they had in this case to witness the strange result of a Minister imposing the most un popular tax, and at the same time gaining for himself popularity by that proposal.—(Hear, hear.) The imposing of one burden by Sir R. Peel was made the instrument for the remission of others. The income-tax, which was imposed in 1842 and renewed in 1845, together with some minor taxes which were imposed, were estimated to raise an income of 5,600,0001. a year; but from 1842 to 1845, inclusive, the taxes which were remitted amounted to no less a suns than 7,000,0001. So if it were taken as a mere matter of pecuniary burden, the public were considerable gainers by the change. That, however, would not have reconciled them to a tax so odious and objectionable if it had not been demanded as a means of trying a great fiscal experi ment for the limited period of three years. There were, therefore, two extenuating circumstances in favour of the measure proposed by Sir Robert Peel. In the first place, it was accompanied by a large remission of other taxes, and in the next place its duration was limited. The period had now expired, and they were now asked to renew the tax under entirely different circumstances, and for a different purpose. The proceeds to be raised by it was to be e rl' h applied t o t h e current expenditure of the country, an d instead o f b e i ng of limited duration, it was to be mad© perpetual, t tendingua to ediregcetntearxaal taxation, and as s of it tlle country was was admitted on all hands that the income-tax was likely to be permanent, it was their duty • • to put it in a business-like shape, in order that it might be accept able to the country, and not a discredit to our legisla tion.—(blear, hear.) Every person was aware of its inequality and injustice as it present existed, and there fore it was unnecessary for him to cite many exam n p les in order to sh ow that that was th e case. lie would, however, refer to one or two familiar cases ; and, first, that of a person fifty-five years of age, receiving an annuity of 400/. daring his lifetime. Now, was it fair to tax him the same as they would a person who was a fundholder, who received a similar income ? Calculate the duration of the life of the former, his income was only worth 4,9001., whilst the income of the latter was worth 10,0001, and his property went to his representative at his death. lie would take another case, that of a man in the prime of life—a professsional man—a physician of 45, in full practice, and making his 5,000/. a year. He paid to the Exchequer the same sum as the landed proprietor who drew his SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1848. AIA for precarious property, or those incomes charged limier schedules B, I), and E, one farthing and a half per p , :und at mei( e 3 cars' purchase is 4id. ofincome, 11. 17s. 6d. per 1001. would be the just proportion. Tile shgiit discrepancy between these proportions and the previous one, of from 12 to 25 years' purchase, arose from one fat thing and a half not Mug the exact sum, and the decimal multiplied by millions affected, though not materially, the result. If they compared these rates of charge with those paid under the present Act, then as 9d. in schedules A and C was to 7d. and 4id. in B, I), and E to 7d., so the sums received, under the new end old charge in each schedule would be to one another; and they would appear as follows: Old Scale. New Scale. Schedule A £2,528,721 .£3,251,179 B 324,339 203,510 744,019 956,600 1,678,595 1,080,700 327,769 210,710 £5,603,443 £5,707,720 There would, therefore, be but little difference between the new scale and the old. Ile felt, however, that there were many objections to the imposition of the tax in the way now proposed. It altered, uni.ucessarily, the charge on tarniers, and adopted the error in the present Act of charging alike ail incomes under schedule 1), whether from trade and manufactures ur prolessons. It might be assumed that the incomes in schedule A arose wholly from capital. Those in schedule B arose from professions which represented skill and labour orly, and from trades, manufscturas, and commerce, which represented labour and skill combined with capital—lie would assume that these latter represented half labour and half capital. Now it was evident that it could nut be an equal tax which would impo.e the same rate on these two classes of income. lie calculated land income therefore ut 23 years' purchase, professions at 12, and commerce and nianufactures between the two (inter mediate), or at 13 jeirs' purchase, and leave schedule B as at present. The following would be the result: — Schedule A, at 9d.. „ B, unchanged 324,339 C, 9 1. ft ll,take6d.asamean 1,440,933 at id. and 41d. It E, 4id. . Total, £6,183,761 Preient income 5,600,000 Surplus These were the two calculations he had made, but he feared he had not succeeded in waking them intelligible to the :louse.—(Hoar, hear.) The latter part of the plan, however, he thought, if the House would favour him with its attention, he should be enabled to explain more clearly .—(llear, bear.) It was the great defect of the present Act, that under schedule D we had two different classes of income, viz, those arising from trade, manufactures, and commerce, and those upu:i professions. He proposed to retain the same number of schedules as in the present Act, but to cast them differently. Incomes arising from professions he would take from schedule I) and place in schedule E, which referred to incomes also of a precarious and ter minable nature., viz., emoluments arising from public offices, 1-paving "D" entirely for incomes arising from trade, commerce, and manufactures. And the scale of tux he woull then propose would be as fullows:—On incomes included in schedules A and C he proposed an addition of one penny to the present rate of tax, making eightpence in the pound.—(Hear, hoar.) On incomes which would be included in schedule E, viz., professions and emoluments from public offices, he pro poced that the tax should be tourpence in the pound— (Cheers)—and upon incomes included in schedule D, viz., trade, commerce, &c., he proposed the inter mediate rate of sixpence in the pound—(Much cheer ing)—leaving B as at present. By this slight increase on schedule A, they would relieve all the other classes, and raise a revenue more than equal to that derived from the tat, and without those vexatious objections Lions to which the impost as now levied was liable. He assumed that two-thirds of the present payment under D was from business, and one-third from professions ; and taking the proceeds from the present tax as a basis, the result would be : Schedule A, at £3 6 8 per cent., would produce .. £2,894,000 at Bd, ... B, (as now) ••• 324,339 ... C, at 3 6 8 ... 841,595 at 8d ... I), at 210 0 959,000 at 6d ... E, at 113 4 ... 235,796 at 4,1 Total £5,581,030 —(Cheers)---instead of 5,600,0001, which had been the produce of the last year. But Ministers calculated, in their budget for the ensuing year, the income-tz , x as product , g only 5,200,0001. His plan would give them a surplus beyond this amount of 381,030/.—(Much cheer ing.) lie was aware that the plug he thus ventured to submit might be taken to be liable to many objections, but then what he contended was that it was far less objectionable than the present Act, which imposed 7d. in the pound on all incomes, from whatever source arising. —(Hear, hear.) Ills proposition would at all crews fall more equally on the several classes of income than the ?result, and he believed the scale he proposed was so far just that it made a difference between thus, incomes which were permanent, and which represented accutuul ited capital—those which represented capital and labour, and those which represented labour and skill only.—(llesr, hear.) It had also this recommen dation, that it would relieve those who were most op pressd by the tax, as now imposed, while the only additional burden which would be thrown upon any class was the extra penny in the pound on permanent incomes —(hear, hear) —a burden which he believed would be cheaply purchased by the large amount of relief it would give to the other classes, the satisfaction with which the change would be received by the country generally, and the ease with which the tax would be collected —(hear, hear.) _ _ The motion having been seconded, Mr. E. ELLICE rose to explain the grounds on which he thought it essential under the present circumstances, even th(ugh ho should be acting against opinions he had previously expressed in that House, to give a firm and decided support to Ministers on this occasion.— ((Isar, hear.) While he admitted that there were ine qualities and anomalies in the tax as now imposed, the peculiar circumstances of the time were such as should induce them to pause before they adopted any new ex periments, or even entered into their consideration. He had supported the imposition of the tax on a former oc casion as the only means of placing the finances of the country in that position in which they ought to stand, and also as the means of enabling Government to make certain reforms in our fiscal arrangements—to unfetter the industry of the country, and give a new impetus to commerce. The results he had anticipated, both in giving relief to trade and replenishing the Exche quer had been fully realised by the tax.—(Oh, oh.) I .le had supported the proposition of the Honourable Member for Bath to tax precarious incomes to only half the amount of permanent incomes, and had also supported the motion for an inquiry, with the view of arriving at some more equitable arrangement in re gard to the legacy and probate duties.—(Hear, hear.) Ile had not altered his opinion upon these points, and he thought the time had nearly arrived when this House must review the whole system of taxation, and deter mine what portion of it should remain in the shape of direct taxes, and what portion the industry of this coun try might yet be able to bear in the shape of indirect taxation.—(Hear.) But he contended that this ques of the income tax should be left in its present state until that time arrived. With regard to the numerous meetings which had been held against the income-tax, he believed they had been composed, for the most part, of persons who were affected by it, but who supposed that Ministere required the money to spend wastefully and extravagantly.—(Hear.) It should be shown that the money was required for national purposes—(tlear) and he knew of no other tax that would as effectually and less objectionably—whether its present anomalies and inequalities were removed or not—raise the money which was absolutely necessary to enable the Government to maintain the efficiency of the public service than the income-tax.—(Hear, hear.) Then it should be remembered that Government bad already given way to the feeling of the country in having abandoned the proposed increase —(Hear, hear, and cheers)—and it would not only be most unwise, but most unjust, now to refuse them that which was necessary to place the finances of the country in that state of security which would alone make it safe for them to continue to undertake the management of publie affairs.—(Cheers.) Let them consider what might be the result of weaken ing the Government; it mattered not of whom it was composed at such a time as this.—(Hear, bear.) They could not mistake the symptoms of the times. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan had been pro posed great changes had taken place.—(Hear, hear.) Ile did not allude to them so far as any political cense penCe might attach to them. So far as ho could learn the great revolution which had so recently occurred in another country was being carried out according to the will of' the people, by honest and able men acting upon their own conscientious opinions; and he thought the cause of humanity and the world were deeply indebted to them for the manner in which they had maintained peace and order. He believed, too, however visionary he might once have looked upon their views, they were honest in their expressed intentions of maintaining, as far as they were concerned, the peace of the world, and to restore peace and order throughout Europe. Apart from political events, there were, however, circum stances which should make us anxious to place the finances of the country on a sure footing.—(Hear, hear.) Let them remember that public credit was a plant of tender growth, and required care in its culture. 1.4 , 4 them not shut their eyes to events which might happen, and the possibility of which made it of the highest im portance that we should place our national credit on a firm footing. 'rite finances of almost every nation had become deranged in consequence of the warlike prepa rations which mutual jealousies had Occasioned.— (Hear, hear.) But so tar as was consistent with the true interests of this groat country he should, in the Select Committee on the public expenditure. be willing to carry out economy. The Non. Member for the West Riding hid complained of the growing in crease in the estimate; since the first establishment of Lord Grey's Government; but the lion. Member should remember the enormous debt contracted during the war, and which we were now called upon to pay, and coin ipi aer woulde it w i t t h h e t r h i e see a 111 ( w w h n i t t atw ay t t h e e rw r in e a a t l ie n bu o r f d t e h n et w h w i s c r h , charge e d o fi t , i r th t e he sp d r e i b ri t gs wa o s f o t n h l e y cboeutnwtery In 81 on. twenty-five 14 the veand thirty millions, out of a total expenditure of sixty mil lions. Now it was thirty-two out of fifty millions, leaving only eighteen millions as the real expenditure of the country, which he did not think extraordinary for a great empire like this.—(Hear.) It might be said why not take the tax for one year, and in the mean time remove its inequalities? But the time when they could best examine the tax, with the view to place it on a more satisfactory footing, was when the Treasury was (‘• Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russel.) The burden was na grester than it had been during tee last six ears; and he preferred renewing the Bill as propo-ed, and leaving the subject to he dealt with when the whole system of tasion should be revisal.—(ilear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the amendment, be cause he objected to do anything that should give a per manent character to this tax.--(llear, hear.) The de ficiency in the revenue was the result of the policy in which this tax had originated. and had been foretold by him and his friends (the Protectionists) at the time. They were told that the present condition of the com mercial classes was such that they could not bear the burden of an income , tax; but that was not very consis tent with the declaration of Sir R. Peel in proposing it, and of those free-traders who supported it, that the new commercial policy which they had introduced would so improve those classes as fully to compensate them for this additional burden. The Hon. Gentleman here en tered into a statement of figures showing that while the product of this country which formed the elements of our exports had been depreciated in the five years from 1841 to 1846 17 per cent., our imports had increased during the same period from 64,377,0001., which they were in 1841, to 75,953,0001., which they were in 1846, being an increase of 11,575,0001. So that while our imports had increased 18 per cent., our exports, with all our exertions, and after a sacrifice of 17 per cent. of the value, fell short of our imports, and turned the balance of trade against us to the extent of 6 per cent. He maintained, therefore, that if they persisted in fostering imports they would not only incapacitate the merchants and ruin the reenufacturere, but risk the credit of the country, by creating a deficiency in the revenue. The lion. Gentleman more strongly to illustrate his posi tion, referred to timber, spirits, and other articles of import, on which he had lowered the duty, and on which there had been, he said, a contemporaneous increase of prices laid on by the countries from which they came. So much for the measures of free trade. The lion. Member for Coekermouth now proposed, as a most charming system of taxation, as the very foundation of free trade, that the income tax should be made a perma nent impost. Against such a proposal he would assuredly record his vote. Every class was discontented with the income-tax; but he could not understand the outcry which was rained against the owners of real property as being insuLficent contributors to that tax, seeing that it was subject, in addition, to a land tax, highway, and poor rates, which amounted to upwards of 9,000,0001., being in direct taxation 15 per cent., or 11 per cent, upon assessment. The lion. Gentleman was therefore alto gether wrong in assuming that real property was un taxed in proportion to its value. It was proposed to tax the fund-holder, but by doing so they would discourage the investment of capital, and the reproduction of capital, by cutting off capital at its source. Much had been said the burden of the income-tax upon the commercial *lasses. But the principle of the income-tax was to allow many deductions in commerce, which were not allowed in the case of real property. The landlord on the contrary was taxed upon an income of 15 per cent. more than he received. Then again the farmer was taxed upon the body of his rent, and though his losses on the year should equal the amount of his rent, still was he taxed. Not so with the commercial man, who was taxed only upon his clear profits or income. Much had been said about the window-tax, but it should be recollected that every shop and workhouse and counting house was exempted from it, while or.ly those farm houses were exempted where the rent was under 200/ It would also be found that the poor rate was assessed upon land at 4.sths its value, and upon house property at 2-3ds its value. And yet the very party who stripped the agriculturists of their protection were sow the party who were the most clamorous for a transfer of taxation from their own shoulders to those of the agriculturists. For these reasons he would oppose the motion. Mr. GOLTLBURN was anxious to say a few words on the subject of the income-tax, believing that its con tinuance was essential to the maintenance of the public credit, and with that credit the best interests of the country. He would not enter upon the considerations suggested by his Hon. Friend who had just spoken, but confine himself to the question before the House, which was, whether it was right to modify the tax in the way proposed should the House be of opinion that such a tax ought to be imposed. The principal argument of the Hon. Gentleman against its present form was that it pressed unequally upon the different classes of the com munity. lie did not deny that it did so. That such would be its effect was admitted when it was introduced, and again when it was renewed. But he did not admit the objection to be valid against it as a measure of revenue, because the same objection applied to every other tax.—(Bear, hear.) There never yet was devised the tax which could be made to press equally upon all classes.—(ilear, hear.) They could only coun teract the pressure of one tax by the pressure of another—(lronical cheers and laughter) and so balance the whole taxation that it should press equally on all. The land-tax pressed unequally on one class as contradistinguished from another. Sa with the assessed taxes. Taking the favourite example of a physician who kept his carriage and horses, the tax he found for that necessary bore heavily upon him, com pared with the nobleman to whom it was merely a luxury, with which he might easily dispense. He maintained, therefore, that to say that a tax was unequal in its operation, when discussing the general question of the revenue of the country, was no conclusive argu ment against it. But, unequal as he admitted the opera tion of the income-tax to be, he would not admit it to be so to the extent alleged by those parties who felt pati cularly aegrieved by it. The lion. Gentleman said those in schedule A and C being owners of what he called realised property, were paying a comparatively , small proportion of the tax, contrasted with those spe cified in schedules B and D. But he should consider that there were countervailing circumstances of in equality, which really did tend to make up the differ enco between the two species of income. The landed proprietor, who derived an income of 5,0001. a year from his property, not only paid the income-tax on that amount, but had to pay a large sum for repairs, together with certaia rates and other taxes, which were not paid by the physician, and which consequently tended to i , qualise the general burden of taxation on each re spectively. Besides, no matter what happened to the landed proprietor, the assessment was en forced, while the physician, if ho found at the close of the year that bis income was only 4,000/. instead of 5,000 L, had only to go before the Commissioners and obtain the repayment of the tax on the additional 1,0001. He was prepared to defend the tax in its prcseut shape, even after the speech of the lion. Gentleman (Mr. florsman), whose knowledge of the subject and great at tention to it were insufficient to get rid of the accumu lated difficulties which must attend any attempt at ren dering the tax equal in its operation upon all classes. The lion. Gentleman proposed a charge of Bd. upon schedules A and C. and, dividing schedule I) into two parts—one applicable to professtons—proposed a charge on them of 40. and 6d. respectively. The first objectio❑ he made to that proposition was, that it was not only a total deviation from the principle which had ever ac tuated those who had proposed a tax of this kind, but that it was utterly inconsistent with our obligations to the national creditor. The proposal was, that money vested in the funds should be charged Sd. in the pound, while money vested in other ways should only be charged 6d. ; thus directly imposing a charge upon funded property of one• third more than was imposed upon other property subject to this tax. This was a direct violation of the assurance which had been given to those who had lent their money to the public—namely, that they should only be subjected to equal taxation with the rest of the community ; and the Legislature hat no more right to tax funded property at a higher rate than property vested in other securities, than it had to sv to the funded proprietor, " You shall give up a portion of your property for the benefit of the nation." Mr. HORSMAN Then the exemption applies where the amount of stock held produces under 1501. a year ? Mr. GOULBURN said, that exemption equally ap plied to other property, and, therefore, could not be urced as an argument for taxing funded property at a higher rate. This very point had been contested be. tween Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt. when Mr. Adding ton proposed an income-tax in 1803, and proposed to withdraw the exemption which funded proprietors had enjoyed. But Mr. Pitt demolished that part of the plan in ten minutes, and the House unanimously confirmed the principle which he (Mr. Goulburn) now contended for, that funded property must be dealt with the same as other property, and not charged a higher rate of taxation.—(Hear, hear.) Next the Hon. Gentleman had complained of the hardships inflicted on annuitants and persons whose incomes were only of limited duration compared with that inflicted on those who had more durable incomes ; and he had proposed to charge Bd. in the pound on all incomes derived from landed property, as in schedule A. But the Hon. Gentleman seemed to have a very inaccurate idea of the nature of incomes de rived from land in this country.—(Hear, hear.) Take any gentleman's landed estates, or even those of very small extent, and they would be found saddled with pay ments to widows and children, and the interest of money lent on security of the et tate ; and on every one of those charges, according to the plan of the Hon. Gentleman, Bd. in the pound would be levied. The poor widow with a most limited income ; children deriving from land scarcely sufficient to defray the expense of their educa tion, all would have to pay Bd. in the pound. Such a regulation would involve cases of greater hard ship than any to which it was proposed to apply a remedy. It would affect clergymen, the whole of whom, deriving their income from tithes or compositions of tithes, were charged under the schedule A. Not long ago the Hon. Member had made a most forcible al:Trill to the House in behalf of the working clergy,. and had expressed great sympathies for the inconveniences to which they were subject. Now he proposed not only to leave them, as before, excluded from exemption, but to impose on them an additional charge , in ord e r to relieve rich bankers, merchants, and others, whose incomes ought clearly to contribute to the public burdens.— (Hear, hear.) Then he proposed to subjectrealis9 its d pro perty to a higher charge, contending that endurance and capability of being transmitted to childr-n ought to regulate the amount of charge thereon. He proposed that sixpence in the pound should b e c h arge d On all property in schedule 1) not derived Irons professions. Surely the Honourable Gentleman could nut hare read the Act. It provided that every man living in England .ho derived an income from possessions in Ireland should be assessed under schedule D ; and did the Honourable Member mean that a gentleman deriving 10,0001. from Irish property should be subject to a tax of 4d. in the pound, while an English gentleman deriving the same amount from property in Yorkshire should be charged Bd.?—(hear, hear.) Was that the way to remedy the existing inequality? If there was a ground of complaint it was that Ireland was not subject to the property-tax in common with England; and the only hold the House had on Irish property was bycharF ing under schedule D those proprietors who resided in England. The plan proposed would aggravate the charge on the English proprietors, and reduce by one third that on the proprietors of Irish estates. The same argument would apply in reference to colonial property— if indeed estates in the colonies could be called property at the present moment—(Wear, hear)—but perhaps the lion. Gentleman had not thought that worth considera tion in his plan. With characteristic fellow -feebeg the Hon. Gentleman had shown great tenderness for the gentlemen of the legal profession, and proposed to tax them at one-half the rate imposed on those who had property in the funds. He t Mr, Goulburn) would suggest whether the payments made to physicians and lawyers—not small in general—were not made in some degree with reference to the limited period during which those profits were enjoyed. When an eminent lawyer, practising before the Committees of Parliament, could make in one year, by payments from his clients, 20,0001 to 30,0001., was it not probable that those payments had some reference to the uncertain duration of such emolu ments, and that they were not simply remunerations for services rendered, but something beyond that, in order that provision might be made tor a period when those emoluments must cease?—(Hear, hear.) So that the Hon. Gentleman's proposition amounted simply to this, they were to pay the distinguished members of there distinguished professions a sum calculated to remunerate them for the short duration of their profits, and then to turn round upon the public, who paid these large sums, and ask them to pay a larger amount of income-tax, in order to lighten the burden on the recipients of those large remunerations. There was no justice whatever in such a proposition. It was true, incomes arisiag from the exercise of professions were uncertain ; but, what could be more uncertain than the tenure of emoluments attaching to the high offices of the state?—(hear.) Not only did a vast amount of labour attach to these offices, and a great waste of property and health, but there was the additional uncertainty arising from cons binations of pat ties, and Lem hostilities found, d on different views of political questions.—(Hear, hear.) But, what would have been the feelings of the lien. Gentleman, or of the Hon. Member for Montrose, or of the public at large, if a Prime Minister had come down to the House and said, " Gentlemen, I have to propose a tax 011 all incomes, which will be perfectly equal, ex cept that we, the Ministers of the Crown, will only pay one-half the amount we impose on others."—(L orebter.) The lion. Member for Cockermouth would, doubtless, have been the first to exclaim against the atrocity of such a proceeding.—(hear.) Seeing that his proposal would leave inequalities as great, it not greater, than those in the existing law; and seeing that it would press with a degree of cruelty on some of the most de serving and helpless classes of the community, ba subjecting them to an aggravated rate of taxation, it ould not remove any of the objections which he (M . Goulbouru) felt to a property-tax, but would make him more reluctant to support it.—(l-Tear, hear.) The fact was a large accession of income was needed to keep up the credit of the country; that could only be obtained by a tax imposed without any of those limita tions which each class was anxious to bring forward for its own relief, and which, being founded on theory, would never stand the test of practice. He did not believe it possible to remove all inequality. The lion. Gentleman's plan would be more cried out against than that now in operation; he must, therefore, resist the proposition. The continuation of the tax for a limited period was necessary; and if some little inequality did exist, it should be remembered how much relief had been afforded to the humbler classes by the removal of those taxes in lieu of which the income• tax had been imposed. This tax of five and a half millions was con fined to a very limited portion of society, to those who were in the enjoyment of comparative prosperity; while those who had been relieved were persons of limited in come, engaged in industrial occupations, who had not the means of bearing burdens which might otherwise be justly imposed on them, and for whom all felt a common sympathy. The lowest individual in the empire was compelled to eat bread, to use sugar, and other taxable articles, the taxes on which must have been increased had not the burden been borne by the higher and more wealthy classes.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSMAN explained that he did not mean to include Irish landlords resident in England in the class on whom he proposed to lay a duty of only 4d. in the pound. It had not escaped his notice that they were assessed under schedule D ; but lie did not think this the time for entering into minute details. Mr. HUME was very sorry the debate had taken this turn. He would not enter into the question of tree trade further than to say that it was quite a mietike to suppose that the tariff of the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had proved a failure. For ten years previous to 1842 the revenue had averaged 51 millions. Since that period it had averaged 52 millions, exclusive of the income-tax.—(Dear, hear.) When the proposition for increasing the income-tax was made he had protested against it; and the nation had done so with one voice. He considered the income•tax bad in itself. It was ridiculous to say it was anything like just and equal, but he regretted the Hon. Member for Cockermouth had now brought forward his proposition; for the question was simply, whether they would consent to an imcome tax or not; and if so, what should be its amount and duration? He, therefore, hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his proposition.—(hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hume) had recently been in company with a dozen political economists; they all differed as to the plan of an ineome-tax; and was it likely that this House could be brought to agree on such a subject?—(Hear, hear.) He repeated that he was opposed to all property and income-tax whatever, if it was not wauted.—(Langhter.) Why should not the national security and dignity be kept up with the &Me expenditure for the next ten years, as it had been in the past? Why should not the fifty-two millions of taxation, produced independently of the income•tax, be sufficient for the national expen diture, as it had been before? To maintain otherwise was to encourage Ministers to squander the public money.—(llear, hear.) It was ail very well to keep up our establishments ; but let the House look at the otter side of the question—at the sufferings of those who had to provide the means.—(Hear, hear.) It had been erro neously stated that this tax fell on the rich and middle classes. To this assertion he would oppose the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had declared, in 1842, that it was, in fact, a tax on the productive classes at large.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing but the extravagance of the Ministry rendered this tax necessary. It was much better to secure the welfare and stability of our institutions—ay, of the throne itself—by not burdening the people beyond their power of endurance.—(Hear, hear.) Would it not have been better in France if the i ex-King had striven to gain the affections of the p e opl e , / instead of destroying their liberties ? Had be dune se he would not have been left without a friend to help in the hour of need.—(Cheers.) We had increased the expense of our establishments from 14 to 18 millions; the country had become more of a military country in late years than ever.—(Bear.) Let the House beware of increasing the national dissatisfaction. This was no Whig and Tory question ; all classes were united, not so much against the property tax as against the unnecessary weight of taxation.—(Hear.) The Le gislature ought immediately to address itself to this crisis. Let not Ministers suppose they were to run on in this course without check or control ; for the feelings iof the country were not to be trifled with.—(Hear.) Why should not the seven millions which had been un necessarily added to the taxes in the last tea years be reduced? From 1833 to 1836 the character and honour of the country were well maintained at a much less cost than at present. Ministers must have known that it had now become absolutely necessary to review the whole system of taxation ; any man of ordinary wis • dom must have perceived that. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended the injustice of this tax because other unjust taxes existed. He (Mr. Hume) was prepared to prove that not a single tax existed which was not unjust ; and was this matter of surprise, after the wisdom which had presided over the Exchequer of late years ?—(Laughter.) It was now for the House to declare—first, whether they would have this tax at all ; and then, what should be its duration. Most im portant was it to emancipate our colonies from the taxa tion endured by them ; this must be done, if we would keep them our friends. Let them govern themselves in the cheapest way they could. He was anxious to see both the army and ordnance reduced ; and with these views, he would not consent to the re-imposition of this tax for more than one year. He would not give greater power to any set of men, Whigs, Tories, or Radicals ; for every one, from a king to a porter, required a check. —(Laughter.) He would only consent to the income tax for one year, on condition of Government undertaking to make a searching inquiry into the expenditure, and to reduce the cost of collecting the revenue. It was not for ireli• vidual Members to come forward with plans for this object ; it was the duty of Ministers to do it, and it they could show that they had reduced the burdens to the lowest possible amount the House would not refuse what was necessary.—(Hear.) National, like private credit.. could only be restored and maintained by re ducing the expenditure within the income. —(Hear.) He would depend on no Ministerial promises or pro testations—let the House keep the check in its hand by granting the tax for only one year. Should it be needed for a longer period, let the Government sedulously ap ply themselves to the task of retrenchment. Rather than lay on additional taxes at present he would call on Ministers and all public functionaries to give up 25 per cent. of their incomes.—(Laughter.) Yes—he would even call on all persons having incomes above 5001. a year to pay a like per centage, sooner than aggravate the burdens on the people. He hoped the Hon. Member for Cockermouth would withdraw his proposition, and let the House go into Committee. If there were anoma lies, let them remain at present ; in Committee he should be prepared to move as an amendment that the tax should only continue one year. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, in ex planation, The Marquis of GRANBY said there were two ways ,of making up the existing sJeticiency of throe millions— ! either by reducing the expenditure, or adding to the taxation. Of the first he feared there was little chance after what he had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; on the other hand, it appeared an increase in the army and other estimates were contemplated. Much eloquence had been expended in condemnation of this proposal. It had been said, that foreign nations would take alarm, and regard this increase as a hostile demonstration. He could not conceive that an additional expenditure of some 500,000/. could be so regarded. He did not believe that Ministers would have proposed such an increase unless they had been convinced of its necessity; and he was disposed to confide in the opinion of Ministers rather than that of the Hon. Member for the West Riding. He was sensibly alive to the advantages of peace, and hoped that the tranquillity which had continued for thirty years would not now be broken. The announcement of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, the other evening, that this country was determined not to interfere with respect to the Government of a neigh bouring country, left him little doubt on the matter; and he thought that the good sense and moderation of other countries would see in that course an example which they would be capable of appreciating. It th ere was no means 9f making the expenditure and the income meet except by increased taxation, the question naturally . arose. what should be the nature of that taxation? An 4 • he felt compelled to say on entering apon that part of the subjeet. that the various budgets which they bed et different time; to censider, did not tend to simplify the difficulties which they had to encounter. The Nehle Lord at the head of the Government, in his speech on the budget, stated that the vicissitudes of commerce bad been very great ; now he was of opinion that the vide , situdes of the plans by which they proposed a rented, were of equal magnitude. His proposal was for the renewel of the income. tax for three years. Now, he thought all parties in the house were agreed as to the injustice and impolicy of that measure. The first objee" . tion to the tax consisted in finding what was the nature of the income to be taxed, and discovering upon what ' principle incomes could be taxed which were deriv ed from so many various sources. An Hon. Member had told them that income derived from professions should not be taxed to the same amount as incomes derived far from realised property ; bat he tho ug ht th a t, so from improving the tax by the proposition which he had submitted to the House, that it would aggravate Or barbarity and increase the injustice of the measure. They could not, by the principle which the Mob' Member had laid down, find a just remedy for a pantie' system. They had been told that the income-tax was to take the place of assessed and other taxes; * btu h was the case, why should professional men be exempted from paying for the protection which they derived from the State?—because, if that principle Wss carried out, it might next be contended that professional men should not be taxed at all. He would put a case to them of two men, each deriving 5001. a year from pro tessi Dual incernes; one might be provident and invest hell his income in the funds, while the other pursued * contrary course. Now, he asked, would they tax the provident man for the property which he had thin realised, and allow the other to escape altogether? He would take another case, of property which was entailed on the male heir; the testator, whose whole property goes to a distant relation, has five daughters, on each of whom he settles an annuity. He asked, in that mush was it ju.t that the heir should be taxed for the whole of that real property of which he only enjoyed a part? lie would take the case of two estates, each afford ing a rent of 5001. a year; in one, the income should • he derived from the natural fertility of the soil, while the other should be derived from prudent ma' nagement and capital expended on it. He asked, in that ease, would they tax those two estates equally ? If they really set to work fairly to adjust the tax, the end of their endeavours would be that they would not dories enough from it to pay the expenses of the state. Mr. Nlacculloch had said of the income tax that it was eo subversive to impose it equally on all incomes, without reference to their origin, th a t th ere was no a lternative left but to reject the tax altogether. He believed in the application of this opinion with regard to property. •H. believed that such a tax was a tax upon honesty, and that it was hat dui on that account to Englishmen. He felt himself compelled to remind the House and the country that the party with which he had the honour to act had not been the cause of the extravagance which had bees committed. That party had told them (the Government) that the consequence of their removing t,000,0001. of taxation would be, that they never could get rid of - the income-tax. When the duties were taken off timber and corn, that party had told them of the consequences which would ensue. Lord Stanley is another place, and Lord George Bentinck in the Hoot of Commons, had told them that they wou ld be obliged t o lave recourse to direct taxation. They were told by the Government that the people of this country would effect a great saving by means of the ire , , come tax—so great a saving, in fact, that they would be able to pay the tax completely out of it; but what bad been the result ?—a deficiency of some millions in the revenue, and a proposal for an increase in the income• tax and an extension of the present tax for three years. • He maintained that the tax was only used as a means to enable the Government to carry out. free-trade prin. , ciples; and he would venture to assert that the experi• ment had proved a complete failure. The evil that it • had entailed on the country had been real, while the benefits which had been anticipated from it had proved unreal and fallacious. The evil bad been.real, maw much as the labour of the foreigner had still an advantage over the labour of this country ; the , benefits had been unreal, because the re-. duction' in prices bad not penetrated into the lower depths of society—to the homes of the labouring classes. Those classes paid the same for their sugar as before. It was true that the wholesale dealer might have benefited somewhat, but he had not benefited is any way commensurate with the evils which had been inflicted on other classes. He assured them that pro tection was not dead—that it was a living principle-- and that the country was still suffering from the want of it. [The Noble Lord proceeded amidst cries of " divide."] After reading some extracts from the Economist in sup port of his views, the Noble Lord concluded by stating that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) who was not then in his place, had frequently declared that, be the circumstances of the country what they might, he and those with whom he had been associated were determined that no alteration should take place in the free-trade system. However, he (the Marquis of Granby) sin cerely hoped the time would come, and that it was not far distant, when the people of this country would con sider the question of free-trade independently—shat they would apply their free and unbiassed judgment to it, and pronounce their opinions as to whether the free trade principle had been for the interest of this country or not.—(Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought he should best consult the interests of the House by not • attempting to follow some of the Hon. Gentlemen who preceded him, and the various topics to which they ad verted. Ile hoped the Noble Lord and the Hon, Mem ber for Montrose would excuse him for declining to follow them through the different statements which they hail made. But, before he approached the subject of debate, he could not avoid expressing his astonishment at the allegations made respecting himself individually and the Government of which he had the honour of being a member, with reference to the imposition of the income-tax, lie had apposed the income-tax upon its introduction by the Right Hon. Gentleman in 1842, because he thought it would operate unequally.—(Hear. hear.) That, he conceived, was a good ground of op position to the tax, but, as it was to be submitted to, he thought it beat in the shape in which it stands. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Granby), and especially Lord Stanley, then a member of that House, and a member of the then Ministry, warned them of the consequences of voting against or resisting the income tax. Both the Noble Lords voted for its imposition ; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), both upon the introdut•tiou of the measure and its renewal. warned the House of the dangerous consequences of voting for the income-tax.—(Cries of " Hear, hear,' and laughter.) After Honourable Gentlemen opposite had supported the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir It. Peel), it was rather hard now for them to say that they had warned the House and the country against the imposition of the tax, and reproach the present Govern ment for renewing the measure to which they were driven by dire necessity. He would not, however, put.. sue that topic longer. He thought the circumstances in which the country was at present placed fully justified the renewal of the income-tax for three years, and that it could not be for a shorter period. It was hoped the general income would be in proportion to the expendi ture of the country for the next three years; but the ' Government were bound to ask for the renewal of the income-tax, as, without it, the revenue could n o t b e made equal to our expenditure. With the exception of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. .Gonlburn), not one individual had even spoken to the question.— . (Hear, hear.) No one supported the motion of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Horse:lan). The Honour able Gentleman the Member for Montrose had very properly stated that this was a most inopportune time to submit such a question to the consider ation of the House; and that Hen. Gentlemen also very wisely said he should be disposed to recommend the Hon. Mover to withdraw his amendment, and allow the House to proceed in a business like manner.--(Hear, hear.) Those suggestions seemed to have the concur rence of the i louse, and his (the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer's) own opinion so entirely coincided with that 'of the Hon. Member for Montrose that he was unwilling . .., to refer to the matter further, even in the shortest•ToW 4 sible manner. Now, as to the particular question under consideration, he believed that any attempt to interfere with this one tax would be unavailing. Every tax pressed unequally. How could it be otherwise? It pressed very unequally upon a person with a small family and one with a large family. That was felt se mush when the income-tax was originally imposed, is was found that attempts to remedy it led to great fraud. The Right . Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) proposed the income tax in the most equitable manner, and upon the most equitable principles it could be proposed-- namely, regardless of the circumstances of the property of those from whom it was to be exacted. He (tee Chancellor of the Exchequer)•. firmly believed that any attempt to deviate from that system. or make the tax more just, would only lead to inextriot, able confusion—to fraud and waste of time, while , the imposition of it would be inevitably made doubly odious. The inquisitorial nature of the tax,it should be admitted, was great; but if it was imposed with reference to the circumstances of the parties, the inquisition into those circumstances should necessarily be more rigid, and therefore much more objectionable than the present system. When the tax was originally proposed all those circumstances were fully discussed. Mr. Pitt took them - into his consideration, and distinctly said that no one should object to the tax, whether he derived his 5001. a year train land, from his ' profession, [ruin his trade, or any other occupation. Mr. Pitt held it impossible to im pose a different rate upon property derived from any of those sources, and that it would be unjust to the public creditor. If that was so, how could it be just now that schedule A (the annual value of lands, tenements, &c.) shoule be more highly taxed than any other species of income ? No deductions whatever were made from the taxes to which real property or tenements were sub ject—no deductions for repairs, or in consideration of the lands or tenant nts having been unoccupied, or that the rents remained unpaid. Landlords were not exempted on any of those grounds, either from the pay nt of general taxes or the three per cent. income. tax. —([hear, bear.) The property included in schedule A, in reality, paid a higher rate of taxes than any other, and it could not justly be subjected to an increased amount of taxation now in favour of other incomes. Realised property was subject to a variety of taxes from which personal property escaped. The pressure, upon the whole, was much more equal than Hon. Gentlemen allowed ; and, taking every circumstance into account, he believed the most sceptical would be compelled to admit that this tax, as well as taxation generally, was far more equal than it was described. He did not assert or believe that taxation was in every individual case equal; but yet he thought no species of property should be exempted or privileged in respect of taxation. But in order to effect that object they must not look to any one tax alone to do that would be utterly ;laden— viC thi thi Po