The Sun. — London, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 17. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. CORN-LAWS. The Dukc of RICHMOND presented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land, praying their Lordships not to consent to the proposed Ministerial al teration in the Corn-laws, unless a higher duty were imposed on beans, peas, barley, and oats. PRESBYTERIAN MIgED MARRIAGES. The NOBLE DuKE then presented a petition from some place in the county of Donegal, praying for the legalization of Presbyterian mixed marriages. The Earl of YARBOROUGH presented petitions from Leinster and other places against the Corn-laws. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition from the minister and parishioners of a place in the county of Down, praying that Parliament would extend its support to the Church Education Society in Ireland. The Noble Marquis presented other petitions from places in the same county. for an alteration of the law affecting the marriages of Presbyterians in Ireland. A messenger from the Commons brought up the Bris tol Boundary Bill. Earl FORTESCUE wished to put one or two questions to the Noble Duke , opposite., An impression had gone forth to the public, that great and fundamental changes were about to be made in the Poor-laws, and although what had passed in another place tended to remove the expectation, still, parties were found who were induced by it to dispute the authority of the Poor-law , Commis sioners. He wished to ask the Noble Duke first; whe ther, in any measure which would be introduced by Go vernment, they. would adhere to the general principles and leading provisions of the present Poor-law; and. se condly, whether they proposed to continue the adminis tration of the law in England and Ireland under the di reetioii- of the' Poor-law Commissioners. Duke of WELLINGTON said, it had certainly been announced by his tight I lon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Dime Department, that it was the inten tion of Government to propose to Parliament a measure for the continuance of the Poor-law Commission. But as the Bill would be introduced 4 the earliest convenient opportunity, he thought no advantage could be derived from a premature discussion on the subject. THE INCOME TAX.. RESOLUTIONS OF LORD BROUGHAM. Lord BROUGHAM rose and addressed the House as follows :—My Lords, in rising to introduce the subject— the important subject—of the resolutions which I took leave to lay upon the table of the House on a former evening, I hardly know whether I would be justi fied in this House, certainly I feel that I am not called upon before your Lordships to vindicate the course which I have thought it my duty to pursue—none but the most superficial and ignorant persons— none but persons most superficially acquainted—if ac quaintance it can be called—with the history of Parlia mentary proceedings, and with the undoubled privileges of your Lordship's House can entertain the shadow of a doubt of the entire competency of your Lordships to consider this question, and of the regularity of this proceeding. It is a vain imagination to suppose that the Upper House of Parliament is, by the constitution of this country, excluded from the consideration of such a subject as the present, or that it should leave the discussion of financial measures solely to the other and lower House of Parliament. It is a mere imagina tion, to fancy that we have not the same right which they have to entertain all questions touching the revenue, touching taxation, as well as questions touching the other interests of the subject. It is a right which we have constantly exercised—it is a right which we have never abandoned—it is a right which, when we are pleased not to insist upon exercising, we volun tarily abstain from insisting on ; but the right is ours undeniably, by the law of the land. My Lords, this is, no doubt, incapable of dispute or controversy ; but it may be said that in practice we have seldom ftvailed ourselves of it. In general, we wait unti' measures have been elsewhere matured, or brought up to us in the form of Bills. We, gene rally speaking, give that precedence to the other Rouse of Parliament. But, nevertheless, the right un questionably exists, anal we are habitually called upon both by speeches from the Throne and by Royal messages, to consider subjects of grants of money, and to consider them at the same time that the other House of Parlia • meat is called upon to take them into consideration. 'here never was an instance in which a message has been sent to one House of Parliament, in which it has not been accompanied by a message to the other House, calling on Parliament to make proVisiou for certain branches of the . public service. So . lately even as the beginning of this session, in the speech from the Throne at the opening of our assembly in the commencement of last month, not merely the Com nionS, lift bdth Lords and Commons arc alike and in the ._ same Nw . A ,,6 . 4qoxfr,Fd of a deficiency in the public revenue, mid called on speedilyt..o take into* ititit-considera /ion; the best'means . of shinnying Lords, I fear glia,e.itrsc has been taken snore or less formally—more .or less substantially in. thelieSOittirnes, and by the best Hof Statesmen; by those most experienced in the practiced '=dui•riis, alftl'lnost tenacious of those forms too, of both Hawses:, of Parliament.. My Lord, when I name the late Lord Grenville, I pronounce the name of one, who to all, his great qualities added this, that a more accurate student of the Constitution in all its branches, and a more careful observer of all their forms never appeared in either blouse of Parliament. Having sat for some time in the Chair of the House of Commons before he ceased to be one of its most distin guished Members, and afterwards having given the most unremitting attention to the forms of proceeding in this • Rouse when he became one of its brightest ornaments. I find Lord Grenville again and again bringing forward questions of finance and questions relating to the revenue or taxation before this House, independently of any pro ceedings that might have taken place in the other House of Parliament. On one occasion, proceeding on what, strictly speaking, he had a right to go by, and not confining himself merely to what appeared on the votes of the House of Commons, I recollect that, just thirty years ago, in the spring of 1812, when a late Right lion. person then at the head of the Government had made a financial statement in that House, Lord Grenville complained of that statement, though it had not appeared on any paper, much less in the form of. a Bill. He complained of the inaccuracy of the statement, and charged that 'Minister with having deceived himself, and being a party •to deluding the country by his statement. In order to show the truth of that proposition, and sup port the charge, he moved for the produc ' tion of certain accounts, which he afterwards made tho subject of an elaborate discussion in your Lordship's • • House. And as if he had anticipated the objection that might be brought against such a course ; and as if he Was determined, by his great authority, that those objections should be precluded—for even the time he chose to bring forward the financial discussion was on the papers he had moved for—and not when the bill should have reached that House from the House of Commons, when some might say he might have more regularly and more usually have introduced the discussion—Lord Grenville pre ferred taking the discussion on the papers moved • for, and before the Bill came up. The conse quence of this was, that the debate was taken the ;vim t very same night before the debate was taken in the other House. Nor was it only when Lord Grenville mz ,f„. Was in opposition that he held such opinions, 'for rbe held the very same when he was in office ; and in the early part of 1807, when that great plan we finance, which had been digested by him and my Noble- Friend near me (the Marquis of Lansdowne) then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was introduced in the ""rq'other'llouse of Parliament, and when my Noble Friend near use introduced a plan as a substitute to the plan of my Noble Friend, and that of Lord Grenville, he (Lord Grenville) did not make any objection to the appointment of a Committee on that occasion, but considering that the plan was not embodied in any resolution, and that there were no papers, upon that ground, and that ground alone, he objected to the motion. He did not refuse eJ discus sion ;on the contrary, he entered largely into discuy.sion, and met the objections made to his own ' plan of finance. He objected to the motion ' which lial titv , was made, on the ground to which I have - alluded, but upon the competency of the proceeding, or , upon the ground of its being a motion of an unusual ra ; to re, or upon that of its being an irregular proceeding fr om the beginning to the end, he uttered not one word. Ititt there is more authority for what I say. There was unothe r person whose loss, because it was more recent, makes l, a reference to him more painful—l mean the late Holland, of whom it is not in the language of mere friendship that I say, that a man more amiable in private life, more wonderful for the ex -tent of his information and capacity, or one' more revered an d respected for h i s true, gnuine, ad honest patriotism and devotion to the interests of his country—(Hear, hear)--never has been, among all the great public losses we have sustained, taken sway from the publie service careful observer of the orderst . r )feMy Lords, he was a your k Lordships' House, in which , perhaps , he Was snore prac ticed than almost any man o f to y, call r skilled and more and to which o he was more p rone than an ythe attention of those who most wish to devi ate from io th w ose , orders. I find him in the year 1810, b ringing forward for an address to the Crown, to a ppoint aCommission motion.ion, to value the tithes and tenths andfirstfruits of Ecclesiastica l benefices, to sub j ect the m to a new valuation, for the purpo se of in q uirin g into the funds d iS . called Queen Anne's bounty, for maintaining the poorer F. dety,y, and upon this occasion he brought forward a motion Lord Holland brought fe.;zward that motion in come (penile of a vote announced in the other House of Par t, • liament—announced hilt not passed—for the payment of 7 loo,oad from the Consolidated Fund, to aid Queen kt' Anne'ta Bounty. On 11th May Lord Holland made that motion. in this House for an Address to find some` substitute for du a vote in the House of Commons, that is to say, to mad to an assessment of ecclesiastical benefices, and it was n ct until three weeks afterwards—not until the 2d ` lll3O O. that the return in question passed the Committee of Supply in the other House, and no other knowledge ! whatever on that subject had been obtained by your I Lordships' House. Your Lordships had not re ceived the slightest intimation at all in , re gard to that subject, save an announcement in , the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the Session, in words nearly the same as the announcement which I have just read to your Lord ships from her Majesty s Speech at the beginning of this Session. My Lords, I think I have said enough, both on the question of principle and on the question of precedent, to justify the course which I am now pursuing. I stated to your Lordships, when I addressed you on a former occasion, that on the Whole it appeared to me to be pro ductive of the greatest possible inconvenience, that your Lordships should not among yourselves , be enabled to enter into all the considerations of this question until it should have passed the L other House of Parliaments If indeed my opinion were clearly and decidedly against the income tax ; if I saw no reason whatever for advocating the necessity of this important measure ; if I had determined, under all circumstances to wage an implacable war against this impost, which, in another place, and on a former occasion, I strongly, and not unsuccessfully opposed and, indeed, I might wait until I had seen what amendments had been made in the measure until the measure were regularly . before your Lordships, 'in order to give vent to my feelings of implacable hostility against it, and in order to try wholly and entirely to defeat it. But, my Lords, that is not the position which I intend to occupy, and that is not the position, I venture -to- take 'upon me to say, as at present advised, that your Lordships believe I intend to occupy. I maintain the same opinion as to the nature of that tax that I have always' had, but I will not go so far as to say that Clrr circumstanced as we now are, after the measure having been passed to which I and others have been, made parties, regard being had to the finances of the country, that we are bound altogether to refuse to have re course to this means of raising supplies. I was a party with my Noble Friend to the great measure for giving freedom to upwards of one million of our fellow-subjects, who were kept in a state of slavery. I was a party to the payment of that enormous, but, in my humble opi nion, and, with my strongly-cherished feelings, I feel bound to say not too high a price for that great measure of justice, of humanity, and of true policy. But I know well that from the payment of that large sum of money has resulted a charge upon the revenue of this country, which forms a considerable portion of the deficit of which we complain. Front 700,0001, to 800,000/., the interest on these 20,000,0001., undoubt edly form a considerable porticn of the defi ciency. I was a party—a deeply interested party to another measure of the late Government—a measure in my opinion most properly passed by the late Go vernment, I mean that by which duties upon communica tions, postage duties generally, have been reduced to so far moderate a compass, compared to the former bulk, that I believe you may say a suns nearer to a million than 800,000/. have been lost to the revenue from that source. Here ends my responsibility as an individual for the deficit complained of. Whatever has arisen from other causes—l will not now stop to estimate the amount, or inquire the origin of them—but I wish to submit on the present occasion, in addressing your Lordships, that no party view, no personal bias, could direct me, and I would fain avoid every topic whatever, that can for a moment distract your attention from the im portant question which I have undertaken to bring before your Lordships—above all every thing that would give rise to unseemly party or personal animosity upon a subject of such great and rast importance. -But the fact was undeniable that the detic,:4 arising from these two causes, to which I have shortly adcet.:ed, is large and considerable, and remains to be supplied ; and .Ilso that we are bound to make up that deficiency—seve'2 millions and a half, in five years ; above two millions and a half estimated as the least possible deficiency for the next year, making ten millions upon these six years, when there is but too great probability that in va rious parts of our empire circumstances will add to the amount of necessary expenditure to be discharged, then, my Lords, does not the public credit demand—does not the security of the empire demand—that a great exaction should at length be made by the Government and Parliament of the country, and that we supply that lamentable deficit in our financial resources, so as to make expenditure no -longer exceed our revenue. That question can only be answered in one way-an affirmative answer, being, I I believe, by universal consent of all men, both in and out of Parliament. But one other question remains before we feel ourselves driven to look in reality to this most objectionable tax—that other question is, have we any other means of making up thiS deficiency? My Lords, I have heard of some rumours—l have heard of some vague and general assertions, that you may by reducing the duties on consumable commodities, by lowering the customs and Excise imposts, you may by these means so increase the consumption as to increase the taxes, and so , make the deficiency good. But, ma , Lords, all experience is against such expectation.. Don't imagine for one moment that I wish to underate the advantages of lowering duties. Don't suppose that, contrary to all-the opinions of all the able men • who haVe uni formly considered this subject, I hold the least doubt that the revenue would ultimately be greatly increased. ;rom a judicious lowering of the duties thatnow press on the consumer ; but the difficulty-is here, that this result will come too late ' ' and that-ifyou lower -those duties as much .as you dare„ankt - el4er to judiciously choos ing those very artiet4 Oliit:lvpiets; most' on the con sumer, and of which COnStimption would be most largely irigtreasgd„.ol4, l if make also the strongest effbrts, and use them with ever so much judg-. meat, that it Will be, , too -Jong before", those reductions will yield the revenue required, and that consequently, those expectations give no answer to the question which ought now to ' be- answered in order to escape from the sad necessity 'in which the country is now placed: I need only remind you of those attempts which have already been made, most properly and beneficially, with a view to an immediate increase of the revenue, but which turned out to be quite vain. Let us, for example, take the case of the lowering •of - the duty on wines. This reduc tion was made by my Noble Friend opposite, in the year 1823 or 1824 to the amount of 54 per cent. What became of the consumption ? It was very materi ally increased ; but what became of the revenue? It was lowered by one-third immediately, having fallen from 2,100,000/. to 1,400,0001. By degrees the revenue recovered, so that the loss was one-fifth in tend of one-third, but to this very hour, and after twenty years have elapsed since the lowering of the duty by 54 per cent., wine has never recovered its former amount, the loss to the revenue still remaining one fifth. So it was with the duty on tobacco, which was lowered 25 per cent., or from 4s. to 3s. Ido not mean to say that the consumption did notincrease in consequence, It did increase very materially, but a deficiency on the revenue still remained, the loss being about one-seventh. Again, sugar was reduced 11 per cent., the duty having been lowered from 275. to 245. In, consequence the revenue from sugar fell off ; the consumptionswas increased; the subject was relieved ; the comforts of the people were increased; a most excellent -proceeding took place from the admirable act of lowering the duty on sugar admirable, I say, for all purposes except that of revenue, and the revenue from sugar is now one-third lower than it was before. The case of kelp is still stronger. The duty on that commodity, which is largely used in manufacture, was reduced—and very properly reduced one half—for there. duction was a great relief to manufacturers. But what has been the case with the revenue ? The revenue at once fell off one half, and it has never since reco vered to more than one half of its former amount. The same thing is true of all other reductions, ex cept the reduction of one or two articles. In the case of runt and coffee, there has been an increase of the revenue, consequent upon the reduction of duty. My Lords, I believe no one can produce one other instance, in which the lowering of duty was not attended with loss to the revenue. Coffee, indeed, is a strong instance, and one, where a great lowering of the duty was at tended with a great increase of revenue ; and in the course of a few weeks the consumption began to increase over what it had been before. But three years elapsed before the revenue' regained its for- rner, station._ I think this shows the necessity for a time of resorting to* other means, when the difficulty that presseS you requires to be immediately met, whether you do so by an income tax or a property tax ; for I think no more need be said to show that lowering the duties will not give that immediate' crease, although it may. probably, nay certainly will in the course of a few years yield an increase. But for the year's supplies, and to proceed for the publieservice, that mode of proceeding is not open to Parliament. But now that Parliament is compelled to consider to what. measures it shall have recourse, it becomes my duty to state what my objections are to the duties which it is , - in tended to propose. My wish is to lay before you the considerations which may guide -you in the course -you are to pursue, for the purpose, on the one hand, of taking. every security that the duty shall continue only to be levied while the peculiar ne cessity that, alone can justify it. shall continue to exist; and, on the other hand, to see that it shall-be stripped of all those portions which render it, and have in past times rendered it, odious to the people of this country. My Lords, , ,a very great delusion appears to me to prevail on the subject of an income tax —and to prevail especially amongst those classes of the people, for whom I feel, and always have felt, the deepest interest—l mean the labouring people of this country, as to the operation of an income tax upon their interest. It is very common for them to say and for those who undertake to instruct them, and ought to know better—to say that they bear a portion of that tax. But they ought to know that the labourers had no interest in income, and that an in- , come tax or a property tax never can affect them. My Lords, there cannot be a greater delusion. The la bourer is at once directly and largely interested in every thing that diminishes the fund; and as that fund is the growing capital of the country, the capital aeon mulating from year to year, or the income of the country, whatever breaks in upon that ca pital, and prevents that accumulation, goes directly to diminish the fund out of which alone the labourer can be paid. The manner in which our income tax operates upon those who pay it, if your Lordships will only for a moment attend to it, will clearly show how directly the levying of such a tax must affect the interests of those whose labour that income tends to employ. You levy so much , per cent. from those possessed of income. All that is withdrawn, if they are persons who employ it in a lucratiye market, all that is withdrawn from that employment. If they were either farmers, or manufacturers, or -traders of any description, whatever they had to pay, that tax was either a portion of their income which they were accu mulating, or it was a portion of their income which they were expending in the course of the year. If, it was a portion of their income which they were accumulating, then if accumulating—if laid by—it produced a profit on capital being added to their capital, and consequently the additional profit derived from it was added to their income, and increased the income which they were to spend the year after. That income, so increased, which they were to expend the year after, no longer is expended by them, because the money in the- capital was taken away from them, which gave rise to that income. It is taken from them to be employed by others in another way, in supporting labour of another description—that labour which adds nothing to the wealth of the community. If, again, instead of being hoarded—when I say hoarded I use an inaccurate expression, for men do not hoard their earnings, they expend them in such a way as to yield a profit, an additional profit the next year to what they had last year ; but if, instead of being accumu lated, and so, going to increase their capital, and by in creasing their capital to increase their next year's income; if it was a portion of their income which they did not accumulate, but expended during the year, then that by the operation of an income tax, is withdrawn from its former . occupation. Now, what was that former occu pation in the case of money being spent as income ; and what is that occupation of the profits of the capital, in the case of its being accumu lated, and not spent within the year The manner in which it is employed will depend, no doubt, upon the class from which it comes—classes of mere annuitants, who are not engaged in business, ' employ their capital not in such IL way as to be productive of other capital, but to promote their own comfort, in the purchase of consumable com modities, in maintaining servants, and in other matter.i, which go to make up what is called an establishment. The other classes of the community are the traders, the manufacturers, and the farmers. Now, let us take the first or higher class of society . to whom the argument is suppoied less exclusively and immediately to apply. I allude to those who employ their incomes in consump tion; and who retail their revenues. I believe that when the, pressure of the tax falls upon that class it may be pretty safely laid down as a general rule that the last retrenchment they make is in those matters which are merely for the eye—which go to constitute outward ap pearance, and to give a tone and colour, and size to the circumstances of the parties, and that the first retrench ment which they make is not, therefore, a retrench ment of their establishments. But, unfortunately, the first retrenchment which they make—if they do retrench —is in those articles which put productive labour into motion—it is in consumption, and by making that retrenchment in Consumption, even this class of the community—l do not mean the unindustrious classes, or the monied classes not engaged in trade or manufactures—even this class of the community which lives upon its income; even they, therefore, diminish the fund, which formerly they used in giving employment to productive labour, because they diminish the amount of the articles they consume. But then as to the other classes of the people, who are em pl.iyed in the trade, or the manufacture, or the agriculture of the . couutry; I need not stop one moment to remind your Lordships, that whatever is withdrawn from the expenditure, is withdrawn from the fund out of which the wages of labour are to be paid to the working classes of the community. Every thousand pounds then which is drawn from these persons—from the farmers, from the manufacturers, and from the traders *of the country, and which is paid in the form of a tax, every thousand pounds so paid is permanently withdrawn and by so much, by that thousand pounds of necessity is the fund lessened out of which the labour of the com munity is to be paid. There is this most material difference between a tax upon income directly levied and a tax levied upon consumable commodities, that the in come tax taken away is accompanied with no expendi ture which supports labour ; whereas a tax expended in paying a duty upon consumable commodities, a i the same time that it puts something in the something out ; 'nr . ..."':-easury, also puts, of necessity, ductive labour is supplied. - goes to support ... "2 , e fund from which pro that the thousand pounds that is taken by way of an inco:4o tux any productive labour at all, w h eret re every one pound p of each thousand that is employed in the roduction of consumable commodities, and that pays the custom and excise duties, of necessity, creates an expe.' diture of another thousand—perhaps of two o r three thousa24l in supporting productive labour—in supporting the trade, the agriculture, and the commerce of the country. My Lords, it is impossible to approach the arguments that have been used, both for and against this tax on in come, without being aware that very great mistakes have prevailed on both sides—that there have been great mistakes on the part of those who have supported the tax ; and when I say great mistakes on the part of those who have opposed it—l should rather say, great mistakes on the part .of those who have no great objection to be taxed, provided you will only let them modify and mould it according to their own fancies and speculations. , It is also lately necessary to keep quite clear of both these errors, and I will begin with the last, in order to put it out of the way. It is a very common thing to hear men say, Oh ! I have no great objection to a tax of this sort—on the cus trary I think, under proper limitations it is not a bad tax ; it has many advantages and fewer draw backs than any other, if levied in a proper mode. If it is asked what that mode is to be, the answer is, " Oh! let it be a property tax, and not an income tax. If it only affects property, I do not much care; let those who have property look to that ; if it only comes upon the land, and upon the funds, there is no great harm done ; but don't let it come upon income. Only upon land and the funds In reality; when we come to examine a little more minutely into the grounds for this predilection for a tax so constituted, by those who thus argue, we find it is rather the fends than the land which they have in -their eye. They have no objection to see a property tax levied, by means of which a considerable sum may be raised from the landholder—that is to say, at the expense of public credit. My Lords, lam sorry to say that this predilec tion for a tax on the Funds, is not, confined to persons of no property at all ; I have heard it not seldom argued for by those who have property. They may give us a tax upon land and on the funds, and welcome, pro vided, we have no other tax. We may frequently find men of landed property having so !great a desire to see a tax on the funds, that they were ready to waive, or at least suspend their dislike to a land and property tax, in order that they might make sure of the other. But they were not the only persons who so argued, and it is more strenuously defended, and more loudly proclaimed, by a very great deal among those who would fain have lands as well as _ the funds included, but whose enmity was directed most against the funds. These men are utterly ignorant of the question they pro fess to treat. They are not only ignorant of all justice of practice, and of all honour in public dealings, but they are utterly and profoundly ignorant of what the class consists upon whom they would be for throwing the burden of taxation, I remember, nine or ten . years ago, when myself and my Noble Friend opposite were in office together, we had occasion to make an inquiry as to the distribution of the dividends upon public stock, and I remember we called for a return of the stock warrants, that is the authority upon which the dividends of the Public Funds are paid quarterly. What was the result ? What was the number of those warrants ? Why, no less than 280,000, and many, of those warrants comprehennding hundreds and even thousands of persons though they appeared as only single warrants being paid to public companies, to the Bank of England, to dock compan es, and to assurance offices. These only went as if they were paid to one receiver, when they were distri buted among hundreds and thousands, and if I say that the numbr of licences is 800,000 I shall not exaggerate the number by a single cipher. Why the average is under 1001. a-year. There are 240,000 under 50/. a-year. There ure 600, and no more, who receive 1,0001. a-year. Is that a tax upon the funds alone—is that a tax on the holders of stock exclusively ? If you throw a burden on them that you do not throw on the rest of the community it will not only be greatly unjust and vastly dishonest—not only a robbery of the public creditors, but it would be a harrassing of the poorer part of the community ; it would be throwing the burden of the taxation for the State on that class who were not the best, but the least able, to bear these burdens. .But it :.aid that property should be taxed and not income. That there is a great difference between capital of every kind and income no person is more ready to admit than I am. That is the bulk of the argument. I am about to address to your Lordships, and forms the' ground work of my objection; but that income should escape altogether—that capital should be sub jected to taxes, and not income, is one of the greatestab surdities in argument, and one of the grossest acts of injustice, that any Government could be guilty of; but, my Lords, it is said, that in order to make the tax a fair and an equal one; you ought to apply a graduated scale of taxation; that you ought not to apply to incomes of every amount the same per centage. That is a doctrine my Lords which has really seduced a very great number of persons indeed. I may apply to both those doctrines the same observation which Montes quieu applied to a book, which was a very celebrated work, in its time, the work of the Abbe Dubois on the Origin of the French Monarchy. The theory is one calculated very much to seduce all who read it, because it takes for granted the matters in dispute; constantly substitutes plausibilities for facts; is sup ported by a series of suppositions which it takes for granted, and then draws other suppositions from them as consequences. My Lords, there is the same fault in the arguments of those who in regard to the question maintain the two opposite arguments, both those who say that this is the most equal of all taxes, and those who say that by the application of a gra duated scale it can be made the fairest and the most just of taxes, are equally open to these objections; the first class assume that it is in your power to make an equal tax, and the second class assume that it would be just that the per centage should rise in a scale proportionate to the income. My Lords, there never was a greater mistake ; in the first place, have you any right to throw the burden of the whole taxatiou of the country upon persons who have large incomes ? Why should the tax not be paid in proportion —in just proportion —in equal proportion by persons possessing moderate incomes. They pay a great deal less in proportion as their incomes are less, and the others pay a greater sum in proportion as their incomes are greater. Nothing can be more just, nothing can be more fair than this ; but this is not,. the kind of justice—this is not the kind- of fairness that is intended. under the graduated scale. Taking the income tax at 10 per cent. that a man possessed of 1,000/. a-year, should pay a tax of 1001 . a - year; i s j us t an d f a i r , and that a man with an incom e o f 10,000 / . ' a - year , s h ou ld p a y 1 ,0001. to the tax, is also just and fair ; each man pays in proportion t o hi s -i ncome ; eac h man is taxed according to his means, but that is not enough to satisfy the advocated for a graduated scale. It is re ported that the proposed property tax is to be three per THE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 18, 1842 cent., but for the sake of argument, and to show the I absurdity of this graduated scale I will suppose it to be I*o per cent., which was the old pro perty-tax. Supposing the tax, then, 10. per cent., and that the man with 1,0001. a year pays 10 per cent., instead of the. man of 2,000/. paying 10 per cent., just 'double the amount of tax paid by the man of 1,000/ a year, which is his fair proportion, the man of 2,0001 a year, under the graduated scale, would be called upon to pay 20 per cent., the man of 3,000/. a year 30 per cent. ; and that is what the advocates for a graduated scale call a fair proportion. Now, my Lords, can such an assess ment as that be considered just or fair ? to what ( must it lead ? I beg your Lordships to carry out the principle to every case, and to recollect that it ceases to be just, unless you follow out that pro portion, and go as far as that proportion will lead you. The rate is increased in proportion to the income. Very well ; suppose that to be just. The man of 1 . ,000/ a year income will have to pay 10 per cent, on his in come. The man of 2,0001. a year, that is double the former income, what is he to pay ? Why, not a double tax at the same rate, but he must pay a double rate. That is, the man of 1,000/. a year pays 10 per cent. ; the man of 2,0001. a year pays 20 per cent.; and the man pos sessed of 5,0001. a year must pay 50 per cent.. The greater each man's income, the greater criminal he is considered—the more he is to be punished. The man of large income is the greater prey, and therefore the more to be hunted down. Then, of course the man of 10,000/. is to pay at a tenfold rate, because he has ten times a greater income than the man of 1,0001. a year. And what would be the consequence of this plan ? Why, that you take the whole income together. The whole 10,0001. is gone at once. There is no escaping from this condition ; because you do not escape from this by say ing .that you do not intend to go on exactly at the same proportion. Well, at what proportion do you mean to proceed. After all, it was only postponing the evil hour. It is only postponing the point to which you must come sooner or later. The man with 4,0001. a year will be made to pay, by the rule which you mean to apply, not 3 per cent., but 6 per cent. More than he would other wise have to pay. The man with 4,0001. a year is to pay 16 per cent. of his income, and the man worth 8,000/. a year is only to pay 12 per cent: and so on. When at this rate you get up to the amount of 50,000/ or 60,000/. a-year, the man possessed of such an income will have to pay half of it, and the mun possessed of 100,0001 a-year will have to pay even one fourth of his income. That is the inevitable consequence. But why make a rate stop at a particular point and•go ' no further ? If the man of 2,000/. a-year pays 20 per cent. while the man of 1,000/. a-year pays only 10 per cent., has not the man of 2,0001. a-year a right to com plain if the man of 6,0001. a-year does not pay four times as much as he does, he having paid twice as much as the man of 1,000/. a-year ? And has he :not a right to complain, if the man of 10,000/. a-year does not pay ten times as much, because he pays twice as much as he that has 1,0001. a-year, for no reason whatever but because his income is double that of .the latter ? Now, I hope you see the absurdities of this plan, when it comes to be consi dered—for surely if • the principle of proportion be any recommendation at all the increase of the income ought to be the measure of the rate, and the rate should increase in proportion to the income. Why stop short with the man of 2,000/., or 3,0001., or 4,000/. a-year ? Why not carry the principle to its extremity ? For one reason—because you find that you cannot in point of practice, and for another reason, because you cannot in point of argument; because the effect of argument would be to expose the absurdities, the gross and revolting absurdities, of the whole scheme. But then permit me to say that you have no right to pick and choose, or to lay down a principle, and recommend a plan, unless you are prepared to follow it out, and its consequences. You must not go so far as is convenient, and stop short when you find your self coming towards the absurdities. You may as well allow a person, who reasons illogically, to escape from the conclnsion of his argument—such a person may say I never said that 2 and 2 make 5; but your answer would be, but tken you have said that from which it follows—now it clearly follows that 2 and 2. make. 5 from the tenor of your argument, and I will not allow you to reject the conansion, for I mean to show by that that your premises have been incorrect. But, my Lords, is this mode of taxation this graduated scale adopted in other de -15 ss of our finances ? Are people made, penmen.. be n th ch e , t r t e ia le n o p t r h e e e l e •s ed s s vho et h l av a e departments, to . pay a greater rate be under these cause they The rich and the poor pay do not pay the same moderate inc li t a nt l e to totally opposite foundation. c? amount, and they are in effect diffeflitly rated, and the same rates of duty ; true they' , legitimately so;. but the rate is the same. Then those who maintain that there ought to be a graduated scale for making an income tax, mean neither wort, nor less than that the public income shall be raised from- per tain classes of the community, not from the cominuts4 at large. It being very fundamentally, and as I have always supposed, the generally admitted doctrine on taxation, that all classes ought to bear their proportion of the public burdens, according to the respective ability of each class ; that a large share ought to be borne by the rich, a moderate share by the middle class, and a very small share by the poor; but that the pooresteiass, those living by their daily labour, ought to pay no tax except as a matter of choice- r a tax that compels the people to pay for necessaries, being, by all experience, found contrary to every principle of justice and sound poliey.—(Hear, bear.) My Lords, speaking in the presence in which I have the honour to stand, when I talk of the universality of the admission, as the deduction front it i l! p receding experience, that a tax on the necessaries of life is a creel injustice, and a gross absnrdity,—(Cheers from the Bad of Radnor.) I ought, perhaps, to make one exception, being reminded by the cheers of eiy .Noble Friend near me, of a tax on a . certain commodity which shall now be nameles. (Laughter, - and hear, hear.) And now, my Lords, there being no doubt that t 1 1./P( should affect all income more or less, but income in pros portion to its amount, and not by any graduating wile, the rate of tax varying with the Income, let us just for a moment consider what the inevitable consespences of such an income are; how deeply interested the eonintitiniiy is in shaking itself loose from it at the earliest possibleitio. meat after necessity has required the Government and the Legislature to impose it; and, above all—and it is with a practical view that I call your Lordships' attention to this now—above all, how much it is the Interests of the community, and how greatly it is the duty of the Go vernment, if it be possible to modify that tax, so as to vary its rate, not according to the amount of income, of which I have already spo i ken, and which leads to the most monstrous absurdities, as well as being it self only , confiscation in disguiSe not to vary the ' rate .in proportion to the rate of income, but to vary the rate according to the kind, which is manifestly a proposition of a totally dif ferent nature. I took the liberty of observing a little while ago, that many of those who are much enamoured with the graduated scale, rest their predilection far it upon its supposed firmness. They assume, like the Abbe, the thing to be proved ; they assume that they can tax income equally. They next assume, like the Abbe, certain supposi.ions, and then they draw from those suppositions certain inferences which are as fanciful and suppositious as themselves ; for they say, having got a means of . obtaintng the incomes of indi viduals, and having levied a tax for all those incomes, you have got an equal distribution tax on incomes, and all classes bear the burden according to their power of paying it. Now, I believe, there never was a greater fallacy than this. I believe it to be fallacious—to be as sumption—to be supposition—to be fancy from beginning to end ; I believe it to be contrary to all experience ; I know that the experience of the former property tax was quite different, It is always most important to keep this in view, with the object of preventing this most odiou s , thi s mos t hateful tax, to which every part of the community, the more they bring their minds to consider it, must always fuel the • greatest antipathy. Th e more t h e necessity, therefore, of making up your minds not to let it continue one . year, ;one day, or one ho u r longer than the said necessity which now justifies its im position. But it is also necessary to keep' in view the different objections which exist against this impost with respect to its inequality upon different kinds of income, with a view to prevent, by all possible means in your power ; that inequality. But if I am told to wait until the , measure is 'franied, and until it is framed and digested in a bill, and having passed the other House of Parliament, has reached your Lordships, my , answer is this, `° That it will be too late. They who are against any tax at all—and.who do not see, as clearly as I see—the necessity, in the present state of the coun try, for any new tax—they would say, " Wait until the Bill 'comes up, and then throw it out." But my firm belief is that the tax is necessary. More's the pity. My firm belief is, that there are no means of avoiding it. The existence of the country demands the filling up of the lamentable deficiency which now exists. Then I have no other choices for, let it come up from the other Ilouse in whatever objectionable shape, I must take it altogether, or reject it altogether. We cannot If an income tax reaches us from the other House, and is make the slightest alteration in it. We c annot alter an " and " or an " or. framed on anything like the same model as that upon which the former income tax was framed, then will it contain not only many money clauses; but many clauses besides of another description, affecting`not Everything relating t o the machinery of the tax — all that relates to the punishments and penalties connected only the pecuniary interests, bu t t h e ri g hts of the p eo p le. with it—all that relates to the duties of those, engaged in levying it—all that regards the judicial or quasi-judicial part ; of n the and upon will ai part and parcel of the mea sure portions of . the Bill we aotiortmhese should be incapable of ofThring any amendment unless we chose to reject the Bill atogether. Is it fitting that 'we shoUld be placed in that position ? Is it reasonable that this house should not have the power of exercising its discretion upon matters eminently .affecting the ju dicial itiuctions of thi s ver y House itself ? I do l shall be placed in such a situation.lot thinke pwu.eblic service requires an imme diate supply, ari d, however objectionable the course taken in raising it may be considered; however contrary it may be to all law; however subversive of all right and of all law, the provisions of the Bill may be, at your peril reject it—at your peril alter it —at your peril, amend it—and at your peril remove any one blunder, however gross and however ob vious on the face of it—any one of , those clauses, however important the clause may be, at 3 our peril, touch it. And for why ? Because the public credit is at stake ; because the revenue of the country is at stake, and because delay may be fatal. We knor not, we can not tell, how many important interests such a step might affect •, and therefore we cannot touch those clauses My Lords, from hence I would draw this practical conclusion, to which I beseech the attention of her Majesty's Government, and particularly that of my Noble Friend on the Woolsack, who I am sure must feel us I do, the necessity of taking some precautions in respect to this important matter. Why should not the Bill be divided into two parts ? Why should not those parts which form a ' money Bill ? why should not those clauses —those provisions which come within the immediate consideration of the other House . of Parliament, and upon which they have no account to give ut, as we have ex perienced this very session—why should not these parts of the Bill which could not come under notice without appearing to deviate from that principle which regulates the proceedings of the other House upon money Bills, be reserved exclusively for the consideration of that House? And why should not they, consistently with their privi leges, divide the Bill into, and send us one Bill as a money Bill, and another Bill not a money Bill with which we may deal as we do with all other Bills ? I can con ceive no objection to such a course, and I am certain that it would be attended with the most advantageous results, and that it would give very great satisfaction. I wish to speak respectfully of the other' House of Par liament. I wish to give the same answer, with regard to the present Bill, that Lord Grenville gave to Earl Grey, in the year 1809, when he observed that in the vote of the other House of Parliament he perceived clauses of the greatest absurdity ; to which Lord Grenville answered, that there was a great pressure of business in the other House. That is the answer I give for many of the oversights in the Bill of the other House of Parliament, and which we, as far as we are able, ought to remedy. I say next, that it is a very great fallacy that by improving the same rate on all incomes, justice is done to those who possess incomes of a different class. You take 10 per cent. or three per cent. from the land lord, and the same from the person who is only a tenant, bat how do you estimate his profit ? •If the ground and framework of the measure is the same with that from which a great amount of revenue had been I before obtained, I believe between 15 and 16 millions, net, and between 17 and 171 million gross ; if the groundwork of both measures be the same and are founded on the same principle, I say the inequality which exists is the greatest absurdity. The tenant's income is taken at a certain proportion of his rent, and it is assumed that because • he pays so much rent he must make so much profit. The rate imposed by the former measure was, in Eng land, three-fourths, and in Scotland one-half ; and I will suppose that, by the present measure, it is intended to take one fourth from the rate paid by the English farmer ; but supposing that the tenant pays 1,0001. rent, does it follow that he has a clear profit of 5001., or that if he pays 600/. rent, he has a profit of 300/. ? You are in search of profit—you intend to tax profit, not capital ; but it is much easier to say this than do it. You will find that while you are thinking you are taxing profit you are taxing capital. I will suppose the case of money laid out in improvement. If the money is laid out by a tenant, he gets a higher profit in consequence ; but suppose a per son is in possession of his own land, and is his own land lord, if he lays out so much money this year, and will lay out so much next, that is so much capital invested in land, and he hopes from the speculation, with a just hope and prudent speculation, benefical to himself, and beneficial to the community, to obtain a profit in proportion to the money he has laid out in those two years. He continues either to hold it in his own hands, and so deriving a greater emolument, or by letting it receives a larger rent for it ; but, then, the tax-gatherer steps in between the outlay and the return, and says this is not capital—this is income this is profit ! But is this profit —is this income ? No such thing. In taxing it, you are taxing expenditure, .you are taxing capital; you grasp at profit, and you seize hold of capital ; you look for fruit, and you cut down the tree. You have meant to take only that which is really profit and income, and you have taken that which is really capital and expenditure. In order to see this clearly, it is only necessary to support the tax levied at the beginning of the process instead of the end of it. Suppose the tax is introduced before the outlay is completed ; you can get no tax at all, unless you tax that expenditure. The owner expends 1,0001. this year, and 1,0001. next, in hopes within a reasonable time to receive a profit. This is supposing it to be taken only from the farmer, but suppose it taken from the manufacturer. He has en countered a large expenditure, and lie has not sunk his capital for a mere annuity—that is not the way money is laid out in trade ; capital and trade is laid out, that, within a rea sonable time, it may be returned with a profit. In what shape does he seek for a return for this outlay of his capital ? He looks for a return in the shape of income, why not in the shape of an increase of 5 per cent. merely - on the capital ho has laid out? No man in his senses would embark his capital in trade upon such terms, but looks for a. return of 10, or 15, or 20 per cent. for a series of years, until he has replaced the capital which he has embarked, and yet between the period of in vesting this capital and receiving this - return for it, voll sic, in, and with your income tax you make him pay praakely the same as if he was deriving his Income from - a landed estate, or any established business requiring no outlay whatever, except the ordinary outlay for wear and tear, &c. My Lords, if this is a hard case as respects the farmer this is a hard case as respects the trader—it is an ingniftoty harder case as respects the life annuitant, You are taxi 14te life annuitant as if he was possessed of the capital frofr, which his whola annuity was raised, although he has tot power of escaping from cm- . b arras s m ent by encroaching oit the capital, but must be coutinci for his support solely . the annuity which he .reeeives. I know . there is a great difficulty in apportioning the rate. tp Ineet the interests of these different parties... A mart has iitt. otate in fee simple of 5,0001. a-year ; he has the unlimited enjoy wig Of the produce' of it, and may, if be deems it expedient, pay liw 4;go*tax out of the capital. if he cannot do it out of the hitepo;it, Anothpr man is only tenant for life ; he ioied up awl el,unot make his gettlement ; he cannot. -..place a charge -upon the land beyond the period. of his own incumbency, beyond your Awn dwelling; and yet by the in come tax of 1816, - tvliiot .had the good fortune to help, _ - to defeat, and Mimi my Kulhle 'Friend opposite at that period defended, the man Uri -off the fee ample &gate was called upon to pay no more than the tenant for life, although the first had a permanent interest in the Witte, and could do with it just as lie pleased, and the latter merely received an annuity for life out of it. Now I cannot halo thinking that some middle course might be atiopted, I do not wish that the life annuitant should wave free, far fiOni it ; but I object to the same per centage being paid by the tenant entail and the tenant for life, and I contend that a smaller per centage ought to be taken from the latter than you oblige the former to pay. If this applies in the case of the tenant for life, it appllea a thousand times stronger in the case of the professfonal man. I cannot Conceive anything more deplorable than the situation of a proffaialiThal person reduced to neces sity by the weight of soh a tax as this T-a tax which he cannot, if lie is an honiait 11 1 1H/ 1 cs cape from— , a tax which no honourable man wouhi endeavour to escape from, but which he must be utterly incapable of paying, without being reduced to extremities, which it is painful itl Poßtmplate. Here-is it person with nothing to support him, whow w h o l e §4 l ) , sistertee and the means of providing subsistence tdr his family deventif upon his own exertions. When illness, altered circumsfaiwg, and various other causes, without any fault of Ina PIM may come to overwhelm—here is a person who canna he 4 ) , per tain of his income as the capitalist or the landowner, ex, posed to all the hazards of his profession, and I put these hazards on 040 aide,—l set them off against the chances of the trader who trada4 upon capital . ; I set off the ha zards of the pyofessional mae, whpther, belonging , to my own profession,- or that of medicine, or ttie p4444qpn of the church, were judgment or favour may operate in promoting a 02,7 n ; I set off those chances against the chances of failure in trade or any of those casualties incidental to a man in trade ; That is not the the cprnpari son I shall make. But the professional Nan. is differeutly Situated from the trader with regard to continuance of health, weakness of mind, following from a debilitated frame in the ekr.ggiy? exercise of profes sional duties ; disease coming upon km whieh may cut short his career ; no capital or , revenue from land to - support his family when so af flicted—in all these casualties, the profesSional man is very differently situated from the trader, and these casualties, these wants will, I trust, l taken into the account before the decree finally goes forth whit subject him to the same rate of tax to which 0,41 land, the funds, and the trade of the' country, is about to, be, I must say justly, because necessarily,- subjected. If you male the per centage less upon those professions then in the case of the tenant in tee, CVelt though you should increase from 3 to 4 per cent., the amount levied upon the, one, and diminish' to 2 per cent. the amount levied upon the other—if in the case of the professional man, the clergyman, the physician, the law yer, the-literary man, you lower the per vantage to two, though you should increase it on others who have capital to deal with, and are able to be draw upon other resources or have other expedients to resort to, which the professional man has not—even though . you wore reduced to that necessity I should still by all means counsel you to make . ' the reduction, But it is my most confident expectation that it will not be necessary, but that, having three per cent. to be charged upon the one, and lowering the other to two, and giving relief to the tenants, occupiers of land, you will still nave enough to supply the deficiency in the revenue. My Lords, it is a very dangerous thing to predict upon the subject of finance, or upon the ex pected produce of a tax ; but I verily believe that we greatly underrate the probable amount to be derived from this income tax.—(Hear, ;hear.) I have a very great expectation that it w:11 be more than has been stated. When I say expectation, perhaps I should rather say hope, because the more there is raised from it the sooner will the necessity, the mischievous, hard, and cruel necessity which alone can justify us even in enter taining the preposition—the sooner will that neces sity be removed. That is the only comfort which I I have in foreseeing—as I think I do.-.-that the sum to be deriVed from the tax will be considerably greater than has been anticipated. My reason for imagining that that will be the case is this—l believe that in the time of Mr. Pitt the income tax of 10 per cent. realised upon the ai erage, from 1798 to 1802— my Noble Friend opposite will correct me if I am wrong — four millions and a half a year. Lord BEXLEY—Four millions and a half. Lord BROUGHAM—Lord Sidmouth was at that time the Finance Minister of the country, and it was impossible to give too great commendation to the ability with which the financial arrangements were made, the boldness and manly courage with which he viewed the difficulties of the times in which he was called upon to act, and to the extraordinary vigour of the measures by which he met those difficulties. He really felt it a debt justly due to express his admiration of the great ability which was displayed at that period. I allude to the skill with which they contrived the ma- chinery of the property tax in 1802. I detested the tax, as we all did. We considered it the very worst tax that had been imposed until then, and we utterly denied the necessity o!'iniposing it,. contending that it ought to be discontinued at the end of the war. Feeling this we all admired the ingenuity by which all incomes were made to pay, by levying the tax from those who had no interest in concealment. Thus you levied the income of the landlord from the tenant, and he deducted it from the rent, having no interest in concealment, until you added a counter.-interest by taking his own profits to be measured by his rent. But that also was checked by other modes which enabled you to get at his rents and profits, with which he paid his landlord. And, so the debtor had no interest, and pro bably no very great feeling for the creditor, but he made him pay the tax, and ded uc t it from the creditor. This was the first time, that a real income tax began to be levied ? What was the consequence of that ? The consequence was that very soon you raised 10 or 11 millions. In the course of a few years it rose to 1G millions. But take the taxes in the two first schedules A and B ; that in the landlord and farmer's tax, and the tax on trades an professions, and these alone increased in seven years— from 1807 to 1814—nO less than three millions and a half. Now, I am puttirir aside the funds and the tax on official salaries. .Bstttaking only those two kinds, and deducting one tenth for the depreciation of the cur rency, there was a clear increase of more than thee millions. There was an increase of somewhere about- 2,000,000/. during the last year. Now, observe, Ido not say that was an increase equally upon trade and land. There had been on the whole an increase of nearly 7,000,000/. in two years ; there had been - an increase in one year of 3,440,000/., and in the other year-of 3,447,000/. But that increase arose from the fact, that the preceding four or five years were unfavourable years ; and in the very next year—in the year 1814—there had been an in crease of upwards of 400,000/. in the tax levied upon trades and professions, which was nearly equal to the increase in the tax upon the property of landlords and tenants. There had at the same time been an im provement in the commerce of the country in the years 1811, 1812, and 1813, the commercial dis tress being then at an end. Now ; my Lords, if you find that there was this constant increase, not only in the income tax levied upon land, but also ,in the income tax-levied upon trade, it follows of necessity that after the termination of the war there must have been some increase at least going on in the taxable income of the country ; and even supposing you were to assume that all the improvements made in agri culture were to go for nothing—even supposing you were to assume that all the new land brought into culti vation could only be set off against the lowering of rents in some parts of the country—even supposingyou were to assume that the lowering of the price of agricul tural produce had made so great a difference both in the farmer's profits, and in the landlords' rent, and that you must set off these circumstances against all the consequences of the great improvements in tillage, which have been, everywhere and cOnstantly going on all over this country every year during the 26 years that have elapsed since the end of the war— then you would still have to calculate upon an increase in the taxable income derived from the trade, the manufacture, and the commerce of the country in all its branches, and that increase must of necessity have been very considerable. Your Lordships will be pleased to recollect that 25,000,00GL a year of war taxes have been given up during this time. The increase to which I have referred took place while you were raising war taxes to - the amount of 25,000,000/. a year. I am talking of the gross sum, which amounted to from 24,000,000/. to 25,000,0001. that tax was levied during the latter years of the war ? And notwithstanding all that enormous amount of capital withdrawn from profitable employment, and not withstanding all the enormous expenses of the war—the lavish expenses of the war—not withstanding all that enormous expenditure, which did not go to increase our productive capital or productive resources, and, consequently, the taxable income of the country ; when you find that, not withstanding nil that, the income of the country did go on increasing, it necessarily follows, as it appears to me, that on the remission of those taxes there must have been some considerable additions made to tl.e taxable income of the country. But for my purpose it is not necessary to show that there must have been any enormous increase—it is necessary for me to show that there must have been an increase to an amount which ought to relieve tenants from their share of the income tax, owners of land from their share, and pro fessional incomes from their share. It is only necessary for me to show that there must have been so great an increase of the taxable income of the country, as must raise the estimate of the amount to be derived from a tax of 3 per cent., sufficiently to enable you to spare a little to the farmer, and to spare a little to pro fessional incomes, whether of the lawyer, of the physician, of the divine, or of the literary man. I hope your Lordships will be of opinion that I have made out a sufficient .case, in the first place, to-prevail on your Lordships to record on your journals, your de termination that an income tax, if it be at all necessary to be imposed, shall not survive that necessity, even by a fraction of 4year; and in the next place, that an income tax so imposed shall contain no variation of rate as between one amount of income and another amount of income, but only a reasonable and moderate variation of rate as between incomes of one description and incomes ,of another description, believing that incomes of life annui tants and - profesSiofial men, do not stand upon the same grounds as those &rived from property and capital, I will uOWSay a few words of the most odious part of the income tax, I mean its inqui:iitorial character—(Hotu, hear)—and as the tax itself falls most unequally on:dif ferent classes of the community, as it is roost uneqUal in all its pressure, -so, it is most unequal in its inquisitorial character, and .the inquisition falls most -unequally on different classeS. What is it to the fund holoer to allow it to be known how much his income in the funds is, which it is impossible must not be known to all mankind? But at till -events, what is it to persons in public o. tees to have their income known, it being as well known what their income is as the name of the officer for the perforMance of time duties of which they are paid ? What is it even to the landholder to have his income known, in comparison with the trader and the professional man The inoumbrances on the property of the one are a secret, and perhaps it is sufficient pain for him that those incumbrances exist, but it must be also utter ruin to the tradesman if his embarrassments became known,—(Cheers.) It is n o t from any feelings of morbid sensibility or vain pride that makes him shrink from having his circumstances pryed into ; but it may be to him matter of life and death to have the parti cular state of his circumstances known. What is the consequence ? He is obliged to pay for a mach larger income than he has—he is obliged to give in an aceonni: that sinks his losses ; but if lie said I have no income he would be in the Qazette next week for say ing so. But then it is said these things are told to honour able persons—they are concealed and privately communi cated to a board— the facts will be known only by Commis sispiss.s-shet he did not choose those Commissioners, and it might happen by some one mit of all the chances in • the world that those Commissioners might be the very persons from whom, of all persons, he might desire most particularly to conceal the state of his off l ips. Theinstant the subject is mentioned it strikes every one. The more it is thought of, the more it adds to the -horror which such a tax must create—increasing the repugnance all men must feel against it, and only augmenting, if it be capable of augmentation, the reluctance and bitter pain with , t ;i14 1 1 ppiot fcgalld the 411solgto neceskity which he is told exists, that he shall pay such a tax, This also ought to make clear, undeniable, utterly unhesitating, the resolution of the Government but whether the Government so resolves or not, I do not care —it ought to make clear and strong the, i/eSolution Cif fIIP 1 / 4 014 1 11Pfli .4114 Cif the people of this country, that for one hour after the necessity shall have ceased, so odious an impost will no longer be suffered to endure. My Lords, that it should fall on all classes wii can afford to pay their share of the public burdens, every one mp§t OP* nor 'do I mean to throw away a single word in emleavoesieg to show this obligation'; but I will say now, that it gives me unspeakable gratifi,. cation to have been inforined that the sentiment not r , ply or p u r Lorciships nor of the gountry at large, but that their wishes and our wishes ,have, been nobly and graciously anticipated—(Cheers)—long before we had an opportunity of breathing those wishes—that the resolution has been taken that that burden which necessity 0010 . jwitify the Government in asking tha , paliament to . iispose—lhatThat burden shall be borne by the highest as well as by the humblest class.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, it has been a fiction—a decorous fiction—of the Constitution, that the responsibility of eveeY painfel dety devolves on the Ministers, bet that every act of grace and favour proceeds from time Monarch himself. But on this occasion Ispeak not of that fiction of the Constitution, but of the fact of truth, when I say thud the Monarch herself, and not the Minister, is to be thanked for this gracious act.—(Cheers.) My Lords, if it were upon any other occasion, I should say that I had detained your Lordships at a most unreasonable length ; but ou an-oc casion of such moment, and so deeply interesting to the whole community, I can hardy allow even the respect I feel foryourLordships to betray me into making an excuse, I know that in the discharge of my duty I have sought no selfish advantage ; on 'the contrary, I have submit ted my animosity, my implacable objection to this tax, to the pressing necessities of my countrymen. I h ave sought no party favour, for I-have stated doctrines on the one hand differing from those of my Noble Friends opposite, and an the other, such as my Noble Friends on this side of the House, are not likely to accept. I have sought no favour out at doors, for I have set my f ace a lik e against an open robbery of the public creditor, and against the 'disguised injustice of a graduated scale, I have discharged- my duty as a Member of Parliament in the manner, and on the scale, and at the e s r anxious so'hiactileisriltioulCihtor refection t wholen on scopeth e subject, and o f the question,' have taught me to believe is the fittest for meeting the exigencies of the occasion, and Inow close the remarks I have to make to your Lord ships with this one additional regret, that a tax' which seemed now inevitable, but 'which ought to be our resource in, war, amend reserved for time of war, should, unhappily, and from dire neces sity, be compelled to be resorted to In time of peace. These have been my opinions ever since the year 1816, when my friend, the late Mr. Wilberforce, said, in these memorable words—" Let this tax always be wedded to war, not only that the people may be relieved from such a burden in times of peace, but that the people—that humanity —may have less reason to dread a time of war, when those in whose hands the waging of war or the keeping of peace may bs, are a ware, and when the people are made aware of the cost, which Ives may entail upon them." This, my Lords , re doubles th e regret w i th wh i ch one sees suc h a resource —such a ma gn ificent national resource as this May be in time of war—anticipated and used in time of peace. I may add, th at t h e b are k now l e d ge by the rest of the world that we have this splendid resource on which to rely power•••-and o to n whichlo taxeswe c t o o u t l i d i e , a a t m a o n o y n m t moment, 2 n o t, nl l to support the necessities of a state of war—the 111 .` , ledge of that would have incalculably increased, 1 1 ', 1 , ( i - though . partially and to a certain degree trenched on, :''..'. still incalculably increase the weight, the name, the tan ei . , , and . the influence of this country in a'l negotiations r t' all proceedings with other nations ; and the pow-e sit: the influence which this country may possess, which wil l v io e l i i t ;,' ni o eit,, u r r : - ., ought to possess, and which, I trust, she ever us. , , possess, as long as that moderation and justice and conciliatory and mercantile spirit in which this this immense power is wielded, shall entitle T es s to possess it—and not an instant longer ought '`.` . to possess it as long as she firmly, yet t l i f ts e i rately, it uses that 'power and influence, the contiesur. of -,; of which never will be grudged to her by any p .t- h ~ the world, because all nations will respect the use r i ,s% makes of it. The Noble Lord concluded by moving_ . 4S , first resolution:----" That a direct tax upon incorne,eo""),..,• never to be resorted to, unless in some great en ni to s,f 4 of public affairs, when an extraordinary en"' res . ' may become unavoidable for a time, or in some . P 1 100 • sure upon the finances of the country, -which ea' sustained by no other means." his , RIP that The Earl of ON was not at all surprised i , Noble and Learned Friend had f e lt it to be his dutY.... , bring under the considerati on o f t h e House; inthe n ) ;, .. ner in which he had done, te very inar ! to c q o u n e s s i t d i o e n r o s i l d h o ic r h e i r t o h o e n i i r s t a L n o o r e d s s m h might.i o p e s htn oro Bare unfavourablehe. reef , r re their consideration than the present occasion. He 1-iii Earl of Ripon) well recollected the course talsenllee. Noble and Learned Friend in 1816, when he ha ' t 0 - ceeded in inducing the House of Commons to oh.je c .ti o , s; the further continuing the income tax after the eessf ilf s of the war, and althowsh speaking or that transtietin%tins• mere financial point e t ? view, lie (Lord Ripon) mig il ioale entertain the belief that the success of h' s d to Friend's efforts on that occasion had ciintribute joi aggravate the subsequ en t difficulties of our tins,'chi; position, he (Lo r d Rip on ) cou ld not t hink din:. the Noble Friend had no t b een j us tifi e d i n taki tl 7 } t it course he did.—(Hear, hear.) He agreed w_ .i l t i l as Noble Friend - in all that he had stated so to the necessity of reserving that which lie ' heir s . justly . called a splendid resource for the time ( 7 1 ,... 5i , to '• pressing necessity should force them to have rec I P - r , lii it. He gave his Noble Friend full Credit coni n g conduct in regard to this znotion, f'or ° d o ne, boldly forward in the manner Is e hail no t!, and avowing in the face of the e ls s°' the necessity for this measure, the effects of which (is ° well appreciated, and the character of which he i h s , ! ttett's powerfully described. The Noble Lord had et - ' l 4r that the imposition of that tax was n eee so t i i for the interests, almost for the safety of the 03 ,"" . r ;f Nobody could deny the general truth of the secs , 1 , position ; and there were many other things e °lll o ttii, in those propositions which he thought as abstract t r o y were quite undeniable, as well as many of th e ilssl ments by which his Noble Friend had supportediaot propositions. But he must confess that he et t oD i s reconcile to his mind the adoption of these res° 2l 's s it in the state in which this questien p res ented ;or There were many propositions in the clear, argu nl- bic) tive, and eloquent speech of the Noble Lord, from 1 00 0 no one could dissent. No one could deny the I '4o self-evident proposition contained in the first reO l cisri to the House. H e cou ld not agree w i th h i s Noble '„ - 5 , V in thinking that it was a conven i ent, or a j u diei%tbi a practicable and use f u l course f or t h at House . tiP ° o 4 first announcement of a que s ti on b e i ng b rou ght te r o r in the other House of Parliament, immediately t 4,iC teed fo record a d e lib era t e set o f reso l ut i ons , wilt, r they adopted th em , m i g ht t urn out u l t i mate l y to u i ,,sl consistent with th e Bill w hi c h t h e ot h er H ou se l l ' tt le send up to them, and place them in the € l o ag 1 ordinary, he wa s go i ng to say, t h e ridi° l 3ll l, predicament of either being compelled to reject th 3t , ii sli because it was not f oun d e d upon t h e principle' j`tse,i,f they had sole mn ly recor d e d, or e l se to retreat frou l Pt; own -solemnly recorded opinions, and accept th e i s fe without the principle, which they had previously dte l res . ought to belong to it. It seeme d to hi m to be ." - t so Bible that business of this kind between th e e if Houses could be safely transacted upon that P r .' ll s oce! In matters of that kind, connected with tan the his Noble Friend laid it down as a principle that ed it had the right, having claimed and never abanch? li nto to deal with tax bills by a lt era ti on as well as rei e „ e Oa t But was it prudent or j u di c i ous r i g idl y to exerciser' right, and would they not be exercising it in th e 00 0! ii i inconvenient manner by resolving that a Bill I V, particular subject com i ng up f rom t h e other 1s is', ought to be fo un d e d upon certa i n principles? l'-isir that saying to the House of Commons, " Nowt o ; le' we do not prof ess an i ntent i on to alter your l3 i If e , claim the right— we k now t h at you deny the righ t ', don't mean to have a collision upon that point, bu t ., ear we tell you beforeh an d th at your ' Bill must co uts l . t ia o tain propositions. and be founded on those proP °9l ol oi , or we will not rece i ve i t ?" I t appears w 11 1 ni el , would be en exceedingly awkward and incoo c t i o s#l mode of discussing questions of that kind in that It al ie His Noble Friend had referred to certain cases as r ii - te r to this. The first was that of Lord Grenville, en .i .,efc' l tainly, he agreed with his Noble Friend that titer . t e Jet' i was ' any . an who more thoroughly un 0 ;gyp the constitutional doctrines that belonged 4, 3 rights, • usages, and privileges of the the two 1 4 '40 3 ; Parliament; nor one more unwilling to give up w o ",_ t le right and just in principle. A Bill was broi.,;e4 the other House for the purpose of regulating tb , _ , A, , el o 1 1 1 1 - ( l , l l a a t o i f] o t r h d e G li re in n g rille N d o id w, wa h s is to No m b o le ve F fro i t e 7 iaalcslisf ariterortdheßll33iollu'hoadllezie dissented. iipfrnni the other II" se ,0 *: 11, ,5 e The Earl of RIPON sa i d that it happened .-aiv' Bill came up the same d a y. B ut t h e H ouse rejec.T.' proposition, and that of his Noble Friend . v:,,t t s , u , More incovenient than Lord Grenville's, -I"l s sP • i t r a Friend also spoke of a Noble Lord •no w , 4° V, with respect io whose public spirit and talentief til d disposition it was painful to seems from haring , b e ie n t lost him—he meant Lord Holland, , . but' . 03 1,1 Lord Holland was not parallel to - this: - ' ' 1116 10 4 0, 9 1 c1 Csmmons entertained a measure Iti, Ay paying out of the ConSOlititited*. ~`" 14 l i fill for the purpose of increasing "the 1 Vitt? . v poorer clergy. Lord. Holland did 114 sot ,• a resolution that this was an improper Bil l 'o s i v moved for a Coinmittee to inquire whetherL v - in i I , o f perty of the -Church itself, there' 'etsnitr[ t ios!;i found the means of doing that which tlie'Cnin, 1 , 5 , sired to do out 'o? the Conssdidet 6; ;l s i That did not interfere directly or indirectly ! s ' '` I privileges of the Houss of Cainimms. I: ll ` s 'issbr;c nothing in that . Cortniiittee which necessarily' 1. goo this House to dissent: from that gran t ' l s ,1( case then . did ' not bear a parallel Is ' i siPa present one. He (the Earl. of Ripon) fel t ceo s 4 . ti absolved from enterin g . into the i _,l ° P - 1 9 , 4 14 .I'' which his Noble 'Friend had enlarged. '' t e''''' concurred with•his Nobl e F r i en d, t h at P ar littnio n ', l ,o/ 1 ;1 . not to have recourse to Such a resource as at pr: g o r r, sorted to b:, Oovepment without the greatest I nt i r li i s necessitY, This was one part :if the Subject () sr e e 'r Ids Noble Friend had laid considerab le t yht He (the Earl of Ripon) did not advert to it f0r 4 ,140 pose of discussing the ma tt er , b ut h e adiePre, be because none of his Ho r t. F r i en d' s restrietiong,A; Li t lit —he meant the machinery by which the tlrs, i bod, A levied. His Noble . `siend had . des' ;', hardness and ti kq ' severity,, and 'in'innoll's• l' s the itkinsttoe to which persons might ' l'. Ado IkONrding to the Manner in . ' . 'which tin ,1 5 4 . 0 117 1. ,11' *ion would b e carried on ;' y'6V . his Nt 1 3Vi, Ird no resolution He thought lie might not ' p u r P o ol c l eed ?t a ll t 'e' any rti '. lB e t nG tl li j i; l: the inexpediency of adopting his Abl e . Friew7,? 0 1 tions, and the cause he would therol; o . lo,St) : their , .. . to astornships, was to adopt the ,- t o 11 ' oil. the previous question, which he 'meant, !e r a ; 10' There was one other topic to which he WO li ' L l ; W i' IP ' , that was the satisfaction which he, iv, coinni`: d lfec t`, Noble Friend felt at the announconeut„. v on es "P' jest, through tho Minister, of her'Avi" l v os IV 6404 herself to the same burden s 1 1 1/ ‘ ,,,j subjects, for the purpose of makil to I ,,Ter deficit in the revenue, which they had tall ile" He. would say that he felt as strongly as the id I,l° o b e o ; upon that subject, although he c° !l ' P sA scribe his gratification so eloquent. ,s,000;',071 iieved that there was nut a man, . r.re cel j,es child wlis did not they that gratification. s `:„see V" ) ; in another observation of the Noble and -I"e ill; coP o f relating to the feeling of other nations ° o f 0 1 60 e 0 .when they viewed the power and resource i s ll o ,col l 0 3 try, when such a tax could be imposeo, te ll n. , go, i i eace; he could not help thinking thats! 11 . 4 on would be calculated to establig h otiS . 11 y Opinion of this country among foreigt! ' %febe t i j, would make them feel that w e , s ottP,,, *lse ,' to be trifled with. Altogether, lie rit , d,.st. 'ru'b'e,' last to attempt to break the s'e , to, ao : j , i ', l ,e liness and confidence which Aes crln t , be . r e, and Learned Lord had so well "-del : wh e 's which he (Lord Ripon) firmly h'ell ol"" ell . ( 1 11e' disposition of the powers of Europe, : 0 1 1 1 e l lig / r The Noble Earl concluded by moving 0 . 1 -`,fl'-',:fn re 9 tions, r .„ .i :Di4l c ot After a fev words from Lord BRO 11 "„e, the amendment of the Earl of Ripon w it ifi. , ', , ;'''':iiie r o without a division. ' Ai n , i 1 .0.1 i t Et ~lulill o ft EDUCATION IN nit , -i0n:„ . ,60. lor Lord MOUNTCASHEL moved fin . iitt ' er til regarding the Board of Education in Irf a Qntil;t Their Lordships then adjourned, 11t ' ,f - Eight o'Clock. . ' .„, lis o f .-4 0 ...---- -- - roc.' V T H he O sp U E S AK E ER O t F ook C t O h /V e i c 2l/ ha o il N . $ 5 1 : 0...4 3 :i 1 i hefr i e to 14 o'Clock. laiCde o r n ta t i h n e re ta tu b r lo n . s were brought t up, R en ep 4 . 9. 4 t d0..61:r,::te ,coo' Mr. ESTCOURT brought tai' the , ii , mittee oNnoSittaltinogprEdserGs.t ..,, BI L• 1" tlis tt certainv i d A u n 1, 1. ipvOir(Nad. aiMEMBER ill Pteer T e r f s i ir l h l e t t n eA s e d e o N f at7 p iP i e . t o ßht p i 'e't e i r i c i' t s, : e:" itliit ' ft .:i' l 51 ' l3r ' L a England Rail%vay Co „ GLASGOW LIFE 1 for the counties el, E dinlin v 00 of Glasgow. :and t ee on tno . , EDINBURGH AND GILNASITS6.II(A:CIe.:ad 3 , 6 11 1:5 9 : 0 • n o. s t Air, le OGSltiWsgAlv I L . / i i f i .e i o i v i e ' Cl u t r h a a n t ee tl i i - e 3 . 17/ A lll e ''' l nlrtish ri ejir t i l i n lif t ( ia lr : t . th ; l l e l ss' :ijit" n L el i ai t tn n s y r e • o k :iv b n e i: el,li added; a,:i:Lly : o :3o ! e. :o:n e m m i N t , 1 fedi t c referred last I l L i l i 'l s: E se N :io E n ai ; d an ti d i , a t t lie a r n e his mod 1..„ to i‘ in ir t l. Manger u o ce s f the o lv r AGHLliotpsugs said, a w l do ought ae: h c accede e R t I t z : l o i f ° l i ar ,, : e i P' 'i y i c i gib e : ace , t y :it ittl e l i n'l i i :4;i stringyol O l ' 6 , It_ ij i ii ii ;;: i passed through a great portion of tl _ bnrto n, t rot ib: r and went close to the county of puul list , no "i ie Ce had been referred to the South East , iro n t vtill In ici V : r at s: a l - ,e 0 mittee. m connected r.E s with Te o u those ß T s places t ~,NSaosultdrus I , h ul .44 ./ c q .