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

~. e~ ~~ IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 3. The House met to-day at Five o'clock. Lord FEVERSLI 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 moving 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 Nobie Earl was about to move would in the course of a few days be lai upon the table of the House. Earl FITZWILLIAM, notwithstanding what bad fallen from the Noble Marquis, would persevere in his motion. He wished to have a discussion on the subject. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE bad no desire to avoid the discussion. but it would be more conve niently taken when the papers should be before the Housia. 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 deeds 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 quired. 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 aiding at a distance from Worcester being summoned. Now, in this case no such summons had been issued, 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 Natierial 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 amend men t w hi c h t h e committee 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 ha I prevented the increase of schools; he could only say, however, that the number of appli cations trom 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 toe—(hear, 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 sees 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 aTgreat injustice, that while dissenting schools were allowed to be conducted on dissenting principles, Church schools were only allowed to be conducted on principles half church and halt dissenting. As the minutes of Council were now constructed there were no means of settling, the disputes respecting the managers of schools. He had himself suggested that a reference, in such mat ters, should be oven t.) the bishop of the diocese, with appeal to the arc!ibi,hop, 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. l'he 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, et he rid not believe that the alarm was so general or so vivid as was imagined by his Right Rev. Friend. - - The Eari of I)ELMVARR was anxious to inquire whether a printed report of an interview between the Noble Marquis and some members of the dissenting body Wes correctly reported ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, from his seat, said he would reply presently. Lord STANLEY 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 bc as sociated a body of small farmers or any others who were subscribers to the schools? How had it ever before been declarsd that without compliance with such a condition no grant should 13:13 made for a school from public fund. ? This vi•Lii not merely a new audition ; it was one now for the first Lime ever heard if. But it was not of this ho so much c enplained i-f the uncertainty under which the clergy and laity laboured in consequence of those suddenly varying regulations proceeding from an anomalous authority. .Fie 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 Elueational Coaiinittee of the Privy Council, and he thought that the evils arising from the working of the apt- m were every d iy increasing. The Marquis of LANSI)OWNE said it was from no reluctance that he had not risen before, but merely to save their lordships the trouble of hearing two speeches. He argued that there was no necessity for any alarm whatever at the regulations of the Educational Com mittee; and he denied that there was any novelty in their principle. With regsrd to the report to which the Noble Earl opposite had alluded, the report was in substance correct. After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON in reply, the petitition was ordered to lie on the table, and the Rouse adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eight. , ROUSE OF COMMOIVS. Mach 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair at ten minutes before Four o'clock. BEWDL EY ELECTION. The follo w i ng Members were appointed a Com mittee t o try the merits of the Bewdley Election : Lord Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. W Hutt Mr. W Tatton Egerton, Sir 13 Birch, W. Mr. 'jV i B. Wrightson (chairman) T. B. ' I`,lr. DUN CAN presented ' et. a petition from the Chamber of Commerce Dundee against the con tinuation of the incom e . tax. Colonel TYNTE presented a petition from Bridge water Jew s into nt6pe Parliament from 3,ir. t i. o i th i e rk swine E effee i t. E presented Perth against the a d m i ssion of Mr. Alderman SIDNEY presented a petitiOamfom ent* Stafford against the continuation of the incoriale. r tx Mr. PATTISON p resented a p eti tion from Cor a d: 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. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from Birmingham to the same effect. Mr. P. O'CONNOR presented a petition from Mr. Robert Owen, stating that the Government was p ra yi ng acting upon an erron e ou s p r i nc ipl e , an d that 1 some ~ . . course might be adopted to ed uca t e an d en lighten the people. Mr. W. AIILES presented a petition from Frome a, _Ragainst the establishment of diplomatic relations with ome. -7: l ' I.atiVlY*.C..Want_rse.nted petitions from Edinburgh .., __. creme bathe7p ln i y u a at i ion of the income•tax, the in . EY sod :', '''' witr e ßoine.'7 n " ''':"7 ' Mr,. 'WA r „ ... . diplomatic relations presentedatudpetitions from st. Georg e the Martyr, Andre,iv7_,B '':. . horn, favour of a tax on agaipsftbet ' ome• tax, and in f• teaLvtoper* Also, a petition froam tavistock, com :041. ingclhat no medical members were obe appointed under the Health of Towns Bill to the local boards, Kb.r I THE SUN LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1848. Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from Whitby against any alteration in the navigation-laws, and also against the continuation of the income.tax. Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from New tastle• 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 for a 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 the 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. 5,000/. a year from rent, but the difference between I them was this—the landed proprietor enjoyed:his in- 1 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 one. It could not be 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 do 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 whose incomes of all incomes were the most precarious.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that there was no country in the world in which genius linked with poverty underwent 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 on 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 ought to be prepared to show them how the existing diffi culties 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 not 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. He had stated 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 llon. Gentleman's lot to make it permanent, he would have proposed some amendments in the details. Sir It. PEEL made an observation which did not reach the gallery. Mr. HORSMAN said be could point to various occa sions on which the Right Hon. Baronet had said that the measure being merely temporary he preferred al lowing the inequalities to remain to facing the difficulty of equalising them. He came .now to the question of whether the difficulty of equalising 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 difficult to answer—arguments furnished by themselves, and also precedents which were perhaps of 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 take care that the tax be imposed in a form in which its operation shall be less unequal and inquisitorial than it now is." On that occasion the proposal was merely for three years, and almost every gentleman occupying a promi nent position in- the House took part in the discussion. On that occasion the Noble Lord the present Prime Minister. expressed himself with peculiar clearness. 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, for no man can say that it is equal for a person who has an income derived from a landed estate, or from the funds, which he could leave to his children entire, is in the same positiou as a person 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 per sons were similarly situated. Neither can any person fairly deny that great vexation is inseparable from this tax. No one can deny that a person who is engaged in trade, and who must either submit to the pa)ment de manded of him, or show all his accounts and expose all the matters in which he is engaged to the persons ap pointed by the Government—none c-in 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 shown;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 the Right Hon. Gentleman on Friday night that they were faults inseparable from it, I might have well conceived that by different modifications, and by alterations with respect 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. Horsman's) fear was, that the inequality of the tax was creating a reaction against direct taxation. But the Right Hun. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in the same debate expressed similar views. The Right Hon. 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 and inequality; but on the ques tion of placing it on a more equitable footing, the Right Hon. Gentleman had said, " Although the income-tax might be passed by persons ignorant of its nature, yet it could not be so maintained; and would it not be dan gerous to peril the credit of a country by placing it on a basis which could not be maintained?" He thought that those opinions showed great sagacity, and he trusted that he would not find them altered on the pre sent occasion. He now came to the means by which, in his opinion, the difficulties attending the permanent establishment of the income-tax might be surmounted. He found that in 1845 the returns from the income-tax were as follows:—The last year of the series in the re turn No. 100, was 1845, and from it 1846 did not mate rially differ. The returns were as follows: schedule A, 2,528,72114 B, 324,3391; C, 744,01 9 / 4 D, 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/ ; B, 11.120,200/4 C, 25,509,200/.; D, 57,511,700/ ; E, 11,227,8001.; so that the whole profits under these five schedules amounted to 192,077,000/. in round numbers. Now that being the whole profits of the country — Mr. COBDEN—lncome. Mr. HORSMAN—He called them profits merely as a general term. Now if he could find any means of capi talizing these profits, it would at least help them so far in arriving at the relative proportions which should be paid by the different schedules. Taking Schedules A and C at 25 years' purchase, and considering 13, D, 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, 2,167,452,5001.; schedule C, at 25 years purchase, 637,730,000/. The other three sections he should put down as life annuities. Taking them as worth, on the average, 12 years purchase, they would stand :—B, 133,442,4001. ; D, 637,730,000/. ; 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 coun try falling under the income-tax was 3,763,618,9001. And if they tested it by other returns and calculations which had been given of the capital of the country, 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 ar rive at some sort of judgment as to the relative propor tion in which the tax should be imposed on precarious and permanent incomes. —(Hear, hear.) The present income-tax of 5,600,000/. being paid on capital in the way he bad just stated, was equal to a payment of rather less than one and a half farthing in the pound of capital. Now, one and a half farthing per pound of capital was 37i farthings, or rather more than tid. of income, or 3/. 15s. per 100/, calculating always four per cent, f or sc h e d u l es A an d C. According to this calculation, if they took the relative values of perma nent property and precorious property—the one as being worth 25 years' purchase, the other as an annuity of 12 years' purchase, about 9d. in the pound became the fain alma of the permanent property to the t4Z• And for precarious property, or those incomes charged under schedules B, D, and E, ono farthing and a half per pound at twelve years' purchase is 4id. otincome, or 1/. 17s. 6d. per 100/. would be the just proportion. The slight discrepancy between these proportions and the previous one, of from 12 to 25 years' purchase, arose from one farthing and a half not being 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 4d. in B, D, and E to 7d., so the sums received, under the new and 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 X 3,251,179 „ B 324,339 208,510 744,019 956,600 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. He felt, however, that there were many objections to the imposition of the tax in the way now proposed. It altered, unnecessarily, the charge on farmers, and adopted the error in the present Act of charging alike all incomes under schedule 1), whether from trade and manufactures or proiessons. It might be assumed that the incomes in schedule A arose wholly from capital. Those in schedule B arose Irons professions which represented skill and labour orly, and trom trades, manufactures, and commerce, which represented labour and skill combined with capital—he would assume that these latter represented half labour and half capital. Now it was evident that it could not be an equal tax which would impose the same rate on these two classes of income. Ile calculated land income therefore at 25 years' purchase, professions at 12, and commerce and manufactures between the two (inter mediate), or at 18 years' purchase, and leave schedule B as at present. The following would be the result:— Schedule A, at 9d.. „ B, unchanged 324,339 „ C, 9d. 956,600 at 9d. ft D,take6d.asamean 1,440,933 at 7d. and 4id. „ E, 4d. . Total £6,183,761 Present income 5,600,000 Surplus These were the two calculations he had made, but he feared he had not succeeded in making them intelligible to the House.—(Hear, 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 .—(Hear, hear.) It was the great detect 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 upon professions. Ile 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 D and place in schedule E, which referred to incomes also of a precarious and ter minable nature, viz., emoluments arising from public offices, leaving "D" entirely for incomes arising from trade, commerce, and manufactures. And the scale of tax he would then propose would be as follows:—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, hear.) On incomes which would be included in schedule E, viz., professions and emoluments from public offices, he pro poLed 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 snore than equal to that derived from the tax, and without those vexatious objections tions 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 Bd. ... D, at 210 0 ... 959,000 at 6d. ... E, at 113 4 ... 235,796 at 4d. 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-tax as produci g only 5,200,0001. His plan would give them a surplus beyond this amount of 381,030L—(Much cheer ing.) He was aware that the plan 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.) His proposition would at all events fall more equally on the several classes of income than the present, and he believed the scale he proposed was so far just that it made a difference between those incomes which were permanent, and which represented accumulated capital—those which represented capital and labour, and those which represented labour and skill only.—(Hear, hear.) It had also this recommen dation, that it would relieve those who were most op pressed by the tax, as now imposed, while the only additional burden which would be thrown upon any class was the extra penny in :he 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 the ugh he should be acting against opinions he had previously expressed in that House, to give a firm and decided support to Ministers on this occasion.— (Ilear, hear.) While ho admitted that there were ine qualities and anomalies in tho 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. H e 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.) He 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.) He 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 umitil that time arrived. With regard to the numerous meetings which had been held against the income- tax, he believed they had heen 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—(Hear) — 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 had 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 public 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, hear.) 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.) He did not allude to them so far as any political conse quence might attach to them. So far as he 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. Let 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. The 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 great country he should, in the Select Committee on the public expenditure, be willing to carry out economy. The Hon. Member for the West Riding had complained of the growing in crease in the estimates since the firstestablishment of rememberLor d G r the enormous Grey's 's Government; s debt t t h contractede l l o n e . duringMemberthe h war,u and which we were now ca lled u p on to p a y , and com pare it with the amount at the termination of that war, he would then see what wa s the real burden which pressed on the springs of the c ountr y . In 1813 14 the enorm " charge for the debt was only between twenty-five and thirty millions, out of a total expenditure of sixty mil lions. Now it was thirty-two out of fifty milli ons, 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 sa t i f ec t or y footitig, w_GS when the Treasury was full.. (" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) The burden was no greater than it had been during the last six }ears; and he preferred renewing the Bill as proposed, and leaving the subject to be dealt with when the whole system of taxinn should be revised.—(Hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the amendment, be cause he objected to do anything that should give a per manent character to this tax.—(flear, 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 tnat 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 75,953,00 U, which they were in 1846, being an increase of 11,575,000/. 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 manufacturers, but risk the credit of the country, by creating a deficiency in the revenue. The Hon. 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 Hon. Member for Cockermouth 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 raised against the owners of real property as being insufficent 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 Hon. 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 of the burden of the income.tax upon the commercial gasses. 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 2001. 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 now 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. GOULBURN 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. He 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.—(Hear, hear.) There never 3et was devised the tax which could be made to press equally upon all classes.—(Hear, 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. SI with the assessed taxes. Taking the favourite example of a ph sician 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 Hon. Gentleman said those in schedule A and C being owners of what he called reelised 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 ence 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 certain rates and other taxes, which were not paid by the physician, and which consequently tended to equalise 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 he found at the close of the year that his income was only 4,0001. instead of 5,000/., 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 present shape, even after the speech of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), 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 Hon. Gentleman proposed a charge of Bd. upon schedules A and C, and, dividing schedule D into two parts—one applicable to professtons—proposed a charge on them of 4d. and 6d. respectively. The first objection 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 Bd. 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 ha t no more right to tax funded property at a higher rate than property vested in other securities, than it had to say 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 urged 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 (11r. 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 cl.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 thetithe Hon. Memberchargeds,wereh ad under made the a most forcible scheduleoA.Ne pr o a t e lonf ago i 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 r i e p h o s h e ll n o k n e t r h e e , them an e a n d a d e i t t s i r onml and d char e th g e e r , o w r h d e e s r e t o r income; el ve ought clearly to contribute to the public burdens.-- (Hear, hear.) Then he proposed to subject realised pro perty to a higher charge, contending that its endurance and capability of being transmitted to children ought to regulate the amount of charge thereon. He proposed that sixpence in the pound should be charged on all property in schedule I) not derived from professions. Surely the Honourable Gentleman could not have read the Act. It provided that every man living in England who 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.2—(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 by charg 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— I if indeed estates in the colonies could be called prop ley l at the present moment—(hear, hear)—but perhaps the Hon. Gentleman had not thought that worth considera tion in his plan. With characteristic fellow-feeling the I 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. Ho ,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 dui icg which those profits were enjoyed. When un eminent lawyer, practising before the Committees of Parliament, could make in one year, by payments from his clients, 20,000/ to 30,0001., was it not probable that those payments had some reference to the uncertain duration of such eraolu• ments, and that they were not simply remunerations fair services rendered, but something beyond that, in order that provision might be made for 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 these 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 suc a proposition. It was true, incomes arisieg 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 coin binations of patties, and from hostilities founded on different views of political questions.—(Hear, hear.) But, what would have been the feelings of the Hon. Gentleman, or of the lion. 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 on all incomes, which will be periectly equal, ex cept that we, the Ministers of the Crown, will only pay one-half the amount we impose on others."—(Laughter.) The Hon. Member for Coekermouth would, doubtless, have been the first to exclaim against the atrocity of such a proceeding.—(fiear.) 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, bs, subjecting them to an aggravated rate of taxation, it would not remove any of the objections which he (Mr. Goulbourn) felt to a property-tax, but w, uld make him more reluctant to support it.—(clear, 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 limits tions which each class was anxious to bring forward for it: 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; ho 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 borno by the higher and more wealthy classes.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSMAN explained that he did not mean to include lii-.h landlords resident in England in the class on whom he proposed to lay a duty of only 41. in the pound. It had not escaped his notice that they were assessed under schedule D ; but he 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 free trade further than to say that it was quite a mist ,ke to suppose that the tariff of the Right lion. 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.—(Hear, hear.) When the propos:tion 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 Cuckermouth had now brought forward his proposition; fur the question was simply, whether they would consent to an uncomic. 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 income-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 wanted.—(Laughter.) Why should not the national security and dignity be kept up with the same expenditure for the next ten years, as it had been in the past? Why should nut 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.—(Hear, hear.) It was all very well to keep tip our establishments ; but let the House look at the ut ,er side of the question—at the sufferings of those who lied to provide the means.—(Rear, hear.) It had been erro neously stated that this tax fell on the rich and tnidfile classes. To this assertion he would oppose the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had declared, ii, 1842, that it was, in fact, a tax on the produetive classes at large.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing but the extravaeance of the Ministry rendered this tax necessary. It was much better io secure the welfare and stability of our institutions—ay, of the throne itself—by nut burdening the people beyond their power of endurance.—(clear, hear.) Would it not have been better in France if the ex-King had striven to gain the affections of the people, instead of destroying their liberties / Had he done so 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.—(Hear.) Let the House beware of increasing the national dissatisfaction. This was no Whig arid 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 of the country were not to be trill- d with.—(Hear.) Why should not the seven millions which had been un necessarily added to the taxes in the last ten 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 (Mi. 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 new f o r th e Howe 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 greeter 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 incJme 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 indi 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 taxesat 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 500/. 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 o!,e year. After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, in ex planation, The Marquis of GRA.NBY said there were two ways of making up the existing deficiency of three millions— either by reducinethe 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 conct•ive that an additional expenditure of some 500,0001. could he 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 Hen. 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 there was no means of making the expenditure and the income meet 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 refuse. COPPER ORE. _ . Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said he understood it was the intention 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. Th'e 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 balance in the Exchequer amounted to about eight mil dons. 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 Eardloy 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 fix 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. WAYS AND MEANS. The CHANCELLOR 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." He 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 ahhorent to the feelings of the people, and every Ailinister 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 he 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 . Tam worth (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 or 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 lees a sum 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 ditTerent circumstances, and for a different purpose. The proceeds to be raised by it was to be Ipplied to the current expenditure of the country, and Instead of b e i ng o f li m i te d d urat i on, it was to b e node perpetual. The general feeling of the country was tendin ,, to direct taxation, and as it 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 inight be accept lable to the country, an d not a discredit to our leisla tiori.—(llear, hear.) E very person was aware of its inequality and injustice as it p resent existed, and there ' fore is was unnecessary f o r hi m to cite many examples in order to show that that was the 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 4 00 /. 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 5,0001. a year. lie paid to the Exchequer the same $ 41 : 41 as the landed proprietor wl3O drew 1348 except by increased taxation, the question naturally aro:e what :hould be '.he nature of that taxation? And he felt compelled to say on entering upon that part of the subject, that the various budgets which they had at different time; to consider, did not tend to simplify the difficulties which they had to encounter. The Noble Lord at the head of the Government, in his speech on the budget, stated that the vicissitudes of commerce bid been very great ; now he was of opinion that the vicis situdes of the plans by which they proposed a remedy 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 impeliey of that measure. The first objec 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 derived 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 from realised property; but he thought that, so far from improving the tax by the proposition which he had submitted to the House, that it would aggravate the barbarity and increase the injustice of the measure. They could not, by the principle which the Hon. Member had laid down, find a just remedy for a partial system. They had been told that the income-tax was to take the place of assessed and other taxes; if such was the case, why should professional men be exempted from paying for the protection which they derived from the State?—because, if that principle was 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 fessional incomes; one might be provident and invest halt his income in the funds, while the other pursued a contrary course. Now, he asked, would they tax the provident man for the property which he had thus 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 case, , was it just that the heir should be taxed for the whole of that real property of which he only enjoyed a part? He would take the case of two estates, each afford ing a rent of 5001. a year; in one, the income should be derived from the natural fertility of the soil, while the other should be derived from prudent ma nagement and capital expended on it. He askrd, in that case, 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 derive enough from it to pay the expenses of the state. Mr. Macculloch had said of the income tax that it was to subversive to impose it equally on all incomes, without reference to their origin, that there was no alternative left but to reject the tax altogether. He believed in the application of this opinion with regard to property. He believed that such a tax was a tax upon honesty, and that it was hateful on that account to Englishmen. He felt himself compelled to remind the House and the country that the party with whieh he had the honour to act bad not been the cause of the extravagance which had been committed. That party had told them (the Government) that the consequence of their removing 1,000,0001. 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 in another place, and Lord George Bentinck in the House of Commons, had told them that they would be obliged to have 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 in 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 sone 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• went 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 had been real, ins.. 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• deletion in prices had 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—that they would apply their free and unbiassed judgment to it, and pronounce their opinions as to whether the fres• 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. He hoped the Noble Lord and the Hon. Mow. ber for Montrose would excuse him for declining to follow them through the different statements which they had made. But, before he approached the aubject of debate, he could not avoid expressing his astonishment ut the allegations made respecting himself individually arid the Government of which h had the honour of being a member, with reference to the imposition of the income- tax. He had opposed the income. tax upon its into election 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, be thought it best 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 ineotne tax. Both the Noble Lords voted for its imposition ; • and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), both upon the introduction 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 ; went for renewing the measure to which they were driven by dire necessity. Ile.stiould not, however, pur sue that topic longer. He thought the circumstances in • which the country was at ptt:ibnt 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 she f Government were bound to ask. for..the renewal of the : income-tax, as, without it, the- 'revenue could not be I made equal to our expenditure. ' With the exception of the Right Hon. Gentleman oppoite . (Mr. Goulburn). , not one individual had even spoken to the question. —• • (Hear, hear.) No one supported the motion of the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hemmen). 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 Hon. Gentlemen also eel' wi=ely 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 souse, and his (the Chancellor of the Ex' chequer's) own opinion so euterely coincided with that of the Hon. Member for Montrose that he was unwilling to refer to the matter further, even in the shortest pos' sable manner. Now, as to the particular question under consideration, he believed that any attempt to interfere with this one tax would be unavailing. Every tan pressed unequally. How could it be otherwise? It pressed very unequally upon' a person with a einem family and one with a large family. That was felt 0 meel when the income-tax was originally imposed, it was found that attempts to remedy it led to great feaso• The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) proposed thn income tax in the most equitable manner, and upon the most equitable principles it could be proposed—'" namely, regardless of the circumstances of tb. property of those from whom it was to be exacted. He (tee Chancellor of the Exchequer) final/ believed that any attempt to deviate from that spiel* or make the tax more just, would only lead to inextric able confusion--to fraud and waste of time, while al° 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 I b o circumstances of the parties, the inquisition into th° circumstances should necessarily be more rigid, an d therefore much more objectionable than the present system. When the tax was originally proposed all theo circumstances were fully discussed. Mr. Pitt took then' into his consideration, and distinctly said that no ono should object to the tax, whether he derived his 5001. • year from land, from his profession, from his trade, or any other occupation. Mr. Pitt held it impossible to in'', pose a different rate upon property derived from anY:; those sources, and that it would be unjust to the pub" ; creditor. If that was so, how could it be just now till', schedule A (the annual value of lands, tenements, 4e 'lf should be more highly taxed than any other s pecies °. income ? No deductions whatever we r e ma d e from til l, : ; taxes to which real property or tenements were io_ f ject—no deductions for re p a ir s , or i n con s ideration _vi the lands or tenem e nts h av i ng be e n unoccupied, or the the rents remai ne d un p a id. Landlords were nu exempted on any of those grounds, either from the Pot: tru , nt of gener a l t axes or th e three per cent. incorne•tu: --(Hear, hear.) The property ipcluded in schedult! Jf . in reality, paid a higher rate of taxes than any othe . , and it could not justly be subjected to an increa s e e _ u amount of taxation now in favour of other loco: _Lk Realised property was subject to a variety of taxes u t - ° l 7, which personal property escaped. T, he pressure,, _r e ; the whole, was much more equal than Hon. Gent allowed ; and, taking every- circumstance into aey, he believed the most sceptical would be comPeueu_ far admit that this tax, a; well as taxation generallhiv l4 or more equal than it was described. He did not suer' ~ believe that taxation was in every individual ceetho'neXs);,: but yet he thought no species of propertY But exempted or privileged in respect of taxation. in in order to effect that object they must n o t look one tax alone ; to do that would be utt4X4 >i• lam the) of i ocri