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

CGURT CIRCULAR. The Royal dinner party at Buckingham Palace on Wed nesday, included their Royal Highnesses the Duohess of Cam- bridg;, and Prince George and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earl of Liverpool, the Eirl end Countess Delawarr, the Earl and Countess Cowper, the Earl of Cardigan, Lord and Lady Cremorne, Lord and La.ly Colville, the Right Hon. Sir Robert and Lady Peel, and Captain Francis Seymour. The Queen held a Court yesterday'afternoon at Buckingham Palace. The Right Rev. Dr.. Gilbert had an audience of her Alajesty, ind did homage upon being appointed Bishop of Chichester. The Right Honourable Sir James Graham, her Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Rev. Mr. Vane, Deputy Clerk of the Closet in Waiting, assisted at the ceremony. Her Majesty was attended by Viscount Hawarden, Lord in Waiting. His ttoyal Highness Prince Albert, attended by Sir Edward Bowater, rode out on horseback yesterday. The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council cm Education met at the Council Office at three o'clock yesterday afternoon. 104 e Lords present were the Lord President, Lord Granville Somerset, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and the Chan cellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Kay Shuttleworth, the Secretary, was in attendance. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the :Bishops of London, Salisbury, and Ripon, accompanied by Lord Sandon, had an -interview with the Committee of Council. A deputation of the Aborigines Society had an interview with Lord Stanley yesterday at the Colonial-office, f or the pur pose cf presenting a memorial on behalf of the British Colonies. The deputation consistei of Mr. Summers ar ford, M. P., Mr. Joseph Holdsworth, 111. P., M r . Allen, Dr. Hodgkin, Pr. Duffenback, Mr. Edward :11artin, Mr. A. B. NI tight, Mr. Samuel Gurney, Mr. Aldam, and Mr. Richard King, Secretary. A deputation, including Mr. Wodehouse, Sir John Trollope, and Mr. Gurney, had an interview with Lord Stanley, yesterday, at the Colonial Office, Among the Addresses presented to the Queen at the Levee on Wednesday last, was one in a whit e satin envelope, em broidered with a silver wreath of " Forget-me-not," which ex cited much admiration. ELECTION COMMITTEES. BOROUGH OF CLITHEROE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday. ) The room wa( then cleared. On strangers being admitted, The CHAIRMAN intimated that the Committee had come to the resolution that the voter should be struck off the poll, on the ground that he did not occupy the premises out of which he registered when the election took place in July, 1847. Thomas Suckliffe, also objected to by Mr. Hilliard, was struck off on the same grounds. Benjamin Coalthwist, who had voted for Mr. Wilson, was struck off, it being objected by Mr. Hilliard, and proved in evidence that he had ceased to occupy the premises in January, 1841, in respect of which he registered. Richard Hayhurst was also struck off on similar grounds. It appeared in this case that the voter admitted at the poll that he had removed from his premises in May, 1841. Edward Braithwait and IVill►am Braithwait, jun., were struck off on the same ground. James Frankland was also struck off on similar grounds. There were altogether eight votes struck off, The constituency of this borough amounts only to 346, of that' number 175 polled for Mr. Wilson (the sitting Member), end 170 for Mr. Cardwell, the petitioner. The usual aqnouncement having been wade that the Speaker was at prayers the Committee adjourned to Eleven &Clock to morrow morning (this day). WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS. (Continued from our Afternoon Edi ion of yesterday.) The Committee decided that Sly was an incompetent witness. The objection to Pride was, that in Jnly 1840, he left the house, out of which he voted for an opposite one in the samelane. The answer was hat Pride had occupied the latter without getting the former. The vote was struck out. The next vote objected to was that of Samuel Moore, who voted out of a house in Maiden-street, having, it is said, sold his qualification. Moore was a painter, but at the time of the election it had been turned into the Portland Arms. James Talbot, a sailor, swore that on the 18th of January, IS4I, he bought the interest of the house for his nephew, who has almost ever since then kept the Portland Arms ; but Moore had been allowed to keep the shop for a month or two, until he c old get another. Talbot was positive that Moore did not occupy she shop at the time of the election. '[he rote of Samuel Moore was declared to be a bad one. David Watkins, Hair-dresser, of St. Mary-street, was next objected to, and his vote was struck out on the same ground. The vote of Thomas Charles was next objected to on the acme ground, and struck out. Wi Liam Thomas, of the Three Tuns; St. Edmund-street, was obj erred to on the same ground, and struck out. Here tilt. petitioners were placed in a majority of two; and t was agreed that each side should take two cases alternately. Mr. notices now, on the side of the sitting Members, pro posed to seru inize the vote of Jan es Bowring. James Cox said Bowring lived in Great George-street, in July, 1840, and went out in Sept. 29 of the same year, when witness went in, having taken the . house from the owner. Bowring then went to live out of Weymouth. Cross-examined by Mr. KINGLEY.—I am a blacksmith. I have lived in Weymouth nearly all, my life, except a visit to Dorchester.—Was not that to Dorchester gaol? Witness— Tna•'s coming it rather stiff, aint it?—( Laughter. )—Were Non ever tried for felony? I don't call it felony. --(Laughter. ) I was tri d, but I was acquitted. It was for stealing corn from Scott —Were you not tried for a misdemeanor at Dor chester? 1 was, but I can't recollect what it was for. I believe it was for receiving corn.—(Laughter.)—Were. you found guilty ?- They said I vial guilty ?—(Leughter.).—Was it the. jury said -o-al 1 suppose so. 1 didn't hear the jury say I was guilty, however, I went back to gaol and staid there six months. liovrainAjs a coach-maker. 1 took his shop and house and he Ital no other premi es in the same street, but he had in Little Gearge-street. But Lena swear positively - that he bad re , other premises in the same Great George-street. Mr. }Sing ley han;led scunelvaper connected with the corn business to the win S 3, but he could not be prevailed on to read it. He said, however, that his bus:ness goes on well at Weimouth, and he keeps on a man. Witness withdrew. Win. Thomas swore that Bowring had no other premises in Gi eat George- street than those he surrendered to Cox in Sep ti mbar., 1;740. Wi,ne.a was agent to the owner a the house. DE a Willis let the howe to Cox, who had since raid her rent. T.ie Overseer gave eri fence or the removzl. Notwithstanding, the admiSSions of the witness Cox, the Committee thought there remained ample evidence to prove Boarring's change of residenee,and,then struck it out. The vote of Eliaz Bow, of anygar-lane, was next ocb•- j eted to. Thomas Wallace, the owner of the house, proved that Bow had been his tenant, but in October, 1810, he left Conygar lane to go to Petticoat-lane. Mr. TALBOT—Is Petticoat-lane near Maiden-street?— (Laughter ) I know nothing abOut it ; though I put down a!most every thing in my book, which is a proper log. Mr. COCKBURN, for the petitioner, agreed to abandon the vote at once. The CHAIRMAN was glad of it, and hoped the Learned Gentl.-reen on both sides would follow his plan, as there ap peared to be a strong family likeness between many of the votes. Walter Crock objected to for ►oss of qualification—bad vote. James Richardson Handy—bad vote. '1 he Committee now adjourned. The result of the two days is the striking off ten votes from the side of the sitting Member, and two from that of the petitioners. The petitioners retained a majority of Two. MONEY MARKET CITY NEWS'. rm'sM TTIE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. CHRONICLE.—We do not know what result Sir Robert Peel expects to obtain' immediately from his improved sliding scale, for he was totally silent on that subject in his financial sta emssnt ; but no doubt exits' that Mr. Baring wou!cl have received a great additional revenue by the imposition of an 83. duty. The increase last year would have been fully 800,0001. in excess over the sum actually received. Ile expected 900,0001, f em a reduction in the sugar duties, and the very fact used by Sir 11. Peel against a change, namely, an increase in consul - nolo-. under this existing proh,bitory duties, convinces us that the calculation would have been verified. From these two items, then, the author of the Whig budget would have drawn 1,700,0801. of increased revenue for the year ending the sth of April, 1842, by au absolute diminution in the existing burdens of the people. He expected also an addition 01 600,000/. by his intended alteration of the timber duties, so as to -thrift Baltic timber to compete with Canadian in this country, and although we always dissented from that particular part of his scheme, it is very likely that he would have got the money from it, so that here we have 2,300,0001. of increased - revenue without a single farthing of new taxes. SUN.—The prices of the English Stocks leave off much about the same as last night. The amount of business has been but small, yet there appears an evident disposition to make investments in our securities in preference to foreign. The last prices for Consols were, money, 897, and 894, 897, for the account. Exchequer Bills, 29 to 31 premium. 'f he late sudden rise in the quotations for foreign bonds, has not only been checked, but the market to-day has exhibited a tendency to decline. As it was stated on Tuesday, an artificial ' scarcity of stock ha 4 been crea'ed to make prices better at the settling, now that the object was attained, a decl.ne is suffered to take place ; as no other reason could be assigned for the advance, so none but this will account for the fall. The prices of Belgan were, 103 to 104 ; Dutch Two-and-a-Half per Cents., 52%, 521 ; the Five per Cent. 103 to 103%. The quotations for 13razalian were, 69 to 71 ; Portuguese Five per Cents. 34% to 34%, the Three per Cents., 20% to ?04; Co lombian, 26% to 26%; Mexican, 41% to 41%; Spanish, 24% tu 25. • The prices of Railway Shares continued to be-well supported, and although the difficulty attending transfers tend much to repress speculation, so that purchases appear to be few in num ber, those, however, which are made are generally for real ' inVestment. Birmingham left off at 85 to 87 ' Great Western, • 26 to 27; the Half Shares, 13 .- to 14 prem. ; Birmingham and Gloucester, 56 to 58; South Western, 59 to 60; Gosport, 59 to - 6011 Brighton, 36% to 36% per share; South Eastern and Dover, 22 to 21 Eastern Counties, 22 to 21% discount. Among other classes who are finding fault with the proposed new fiscal regulations, the foremost appear to be the graziers and meat salesmen. These parties are fully impressed with the idea that their trade is about to be ruined ; and it is anticipated that when the alteration comes fully into operation, the highest price of the best meat in the London markets will not exceed 4d: per pound. It would seem that there is really some founda tion for the general opinion, from the fact of several of the large commission dealers, making arrangements for opening a continental commission with the graziers abroad; and there is every reason to believe that a party has been already dispatched to visit the principal forts in Belgium and Holland with this object. CO - A V ERA GE:S • OEN ERAL AVERAOP. PRICES OF BRITISH CORN, Forlzhe Weekended March..ll, 18.1 4 , made up from the Returns tt the Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales,per Imperial Quarter. Wheat '94.11d.1 Oats .. . . ..... 19%. 014 Beans 31. 10d Barley 27i. 94* it " '•••••••• Rh lid, Ild. A.Flotwors OF THE LAST six WEEKS. wrrk priding , WHEAT. BA4LEY.I OATi. I EVE. BEANS. !NUS!. Feb, 1 ......... 60 6 2-3 5 ;20 1 ,71 1 33 z 34 11 36 is ......... 60 11 0 28 5 19 8i 37 0 32 1) 33 0 25... ...... 60 10 98 r, 19 ~3 1 10 t 1 3 , 11 March 4 ......... 60 928 3 1 9 li3l 3 ; : i l 33 1 32 6 11......... 50 11 27 9 19 0 33 11 31 10 33 11 IMPERIAL AGGREGATE AVERAOES OF THE alx wants, Wheat......... Mi. 41. Oats ...".... li. 8(1.1 B ea ,. re. gd. Har1ej.......... 235. 3(1.11 Rye ••....... 34, . 101 1 Pease '33. ed DUTIIS Alf FOREIGN CORR. Wheat.« 269. Sd. I ()a" B a rley 199. 19c1. i nye ......... 18 s. 3 d.1 Pease 19,. 34. --- DEATH OF LADY MAY. —.011 the 15th inst. died, at BoulocTne-sur-Mer, in the prime of life, Frances, the lady of Sir Steen May, Bart. Lady May w as b y birth, and by her marria, connected with many of the firs t families in Ire and. She will be long and deeply lamented by a numerous circle of friends, who loved her for a rare assemblage of virtues, adorned by talents and accomplishments of the highest order, graced by the most winning manners. The malady, which has so fatally terminated, , was orsome montbs'_4tration. , issEay.vrivE ADDREss.—The time for the pre ion of the address of the clergy has been altered. The addre b e , SS will meet in the "nted at half-past one, awl the clergy will Jerusalem Chamber 0-morrow, et half-past twelve o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 17. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. CORN-LAWS. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from certain owners and occupiers of land, praying their Lordships not to consent to the proposed Ministerial al teration n the Corn-laws, unless a higher duty were imposed on beans, peas, barley, and oats. PRESBYTERIAN MIXED 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 twa 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. Ile wished to ask the Noble Duke first, whe ther, in any measure which would be introduced by . G overnment, they would adhere to the general principles and leading provisions of the present Poor-law; and, se condly, whether they roposed to continue the adminis tration of the law in langland and Ireland under the di rection of the Poor-law Commissioners. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, it had certainly been announced by his Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home 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 at 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 undoubted privileges of your Lordships' 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 availed ourselves of it. In general, we wait until 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 House of Parliament. But, nevertheless, the right un questionably exists, an-1 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 • went is called upon to take them into consideration. There never was an instance in which a message has been sent to one House of Parliament, in which it has lint been accompanied by a message to the other House, calling on Parliament to make provision for certain branches of the public service. So,! lately even as the beginning of this session, in the simech from the Throne at the opening of our assembly in the commencement of last month, not merely the Com mons, but both Lords and Commons are alike and in the same words informed of a deficiency in the public revenue, and called on speedily to take into their considera tion, the best means of supplying it. My Lords, I fear this course has been taken more or less formally—more er less substantially in the best of times, and by the best of Statesmen; by those most experienced in the practised forms, and most tenacious of those forms too, of both Houses 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, • anti a more careful observer of all their forms never appeared in either House 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 House 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 Hon. Person then at the head of the G..vernment had made a financial statement in that House, Lord Grenville complained of that statement, though it had not appeared on any paper, much leis in the form of a Bill. He complained of the inaccuracy of • the statement, and charged that Minhiter 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 the subject of an elaborate discussion in your Lordships' 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 very same night before the debate was taken in the other House. Nor was it only when Lord Grenville was in opposition that he hold such opinions, for he held the very same when he was in office ; and in the early part of 1807, when that great plan of 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 other House of Parliament, and when my Noble Friend near me 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 discussion ; on the contrary, he entered largely into discussion, and met the objections made to his own plan of finance. He objected to the motion which 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 na ture, or upon that of its being an irregular proceeding from the beginning to the end, he uttered not one w ord. But there is more authority for what I say. There was another person whose loss, because it was more recent, makes a reference to him more painful—l.mean the late Lord 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 and respected for his true, genuine, and 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 away from the public service. My Lords, he was a careful observer of the oilers of your Lordships' House, in which, perhaps, he was more skilled and more prac tised than almost any man of his day, and to which he was more prone than any other to call the attention of those who most wish to deviate from those orders. I find him in the year 1810, bringing forward a motion. for an address to the Crown, to appoint a Commission to value the tithes and tenths and first fruits of Ecclesiastical benefices, to subject them to a new valuation, for the purpose of inquiring into the funds vaned Queen Anne's bounty, for maintaining the poorer clergy, and upon this occasion he brought forward motion. Lord - Holland brought forward that motion in conse quence of a vote announ& - d-in the other House of Par hair. t_ but not passed—for the payment of 100,0‘..a from the Consolidated Fund, to aid Queen Anne's Bounty. On 11th May Lord Holland mace that motion in this House for an Ai-dre3s to find st-ne substitute for that vote in the IlLase of Commons, that is to. say, to make an assessment of ecclesiastical benefices ' and it was not until three w ee k s a ft e r war d s — m ot until the 2d June, that the return in question passed the Committee TIM SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARL. I 18 5 1842 of Supply in the other House, and no other knowledge whatever on that subject had been obtained by your Lordships' House. Your Lordships had not re ceived the slightest intimation at all in re gard to that subject, save asj 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 other House of Parliament. 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 cir 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. From 700,000/, to 800,0001., the interest on these 20,000,000 L, 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 eompass, compared to the former bulk, that I believe you may say a sum nearer to a million than 800,0001. 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 vast importance. But the fact was undeniable that the deficit arising from these two causes, to which I have shortly adverted, is large and considerable, and remains to be supplied ; and also that we are bound to make up that deficiency—seven 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, dees 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, my 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. from a judicious lowering of the duties thatnow pres on the consumer ; but the difficulty is here, that this result will come too late, and that if you lower those duties as much as you dare, and ever so judiciously choos ing those very articles that now press most on the con sumer, and of which the consumption would be most Targely increased, that, if you make also the strongest efforts, and use them with ever so much judg ment, that it will be too long 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 2,100,0001. to 1,400,Q00/. By degrees the revenue recovered, so that the loss was one-fifth in teed 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. I do not mean to say that the consumption did not increase 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 consumption was 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• halt—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 rum 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 mer 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 in 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 public service, 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 n teh yhe caoubderj, so e encost considerations s taking eog r nAt e los every t o pursue, theahis to duties ay before f i t is guidein tended t he d oot duty the what u which security formay the that purpose, shall continue only to be le v i e d while the peculiar ne cessity that alone can justify it, s h a ll cont i nue to ex i st; and, on the other hand, to see that it sh a ll b e s t r i ppe d o f all those portions which render it, and have in p as t ti mes rendered it, odious to the people of this count r y. My Lords, a very great delusion appears to me to prevail on the subject of an income tax ynou theo to on propose. —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 then*, 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 the m . 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 acme 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 levyi ng 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 lucrative 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 courge 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 sogoing 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 ease 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 a 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 matters, 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 supposed 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, tho 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 uniriclustrious 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 ployed in the trade, or the manufacture, or the agriculture of the country, 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, at the same time that it puts something in the Treasury, also puts, of necessity, something out of the fund from which pro ductive labour is supplied. -So that the thousand pounds that is taken by way of an income tax goes to support any productive labour at all, whereas every one pound of each thousand that is employed in the production of consumable commodities, and that pays the custom and excise duties, of necessity, creates an expenditure of another thousand—perhaps of two or three thousand, 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 I have no great objection to a tax of this sort—on the con 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 nut 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 funds 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 leave 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 53 argued, and it sis 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 m 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 companies, 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 number of licences is 300,000 I shall not exaggerate the number by a single cipher. Why the average is under 100/. a-year. There are 2. , :_0,000 under 50/. a-year. There are 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 said 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 a mount the same per centage. That is a doctrine my Lords which has really seduced a which was a very be De ted . work, bothvery greatthose doctrinesnumber o of the same ons e i b n s d e e r e v d a . t Inc celebrated eb a bi y er ah apply i‘ieet e t e o . quiet' applied to a book, hots on in its time, the work of the A o th n e e O c r a igi lc n ula o i ti c hs same it from takes tm matters dispute; it, because it takes for grante.d. the ibilities for facts; is . constantly substitutes p aus- . . fer granted , d e t ebyd, and ot calculated d the very French much Monarchy.t e eedae T a e . w t h b. e b. o r r y e a i d s as consequences. My Lords, there is the_ t fault in the arguments of those who in regard to the question e a n applicationt t tthoseoarxgra duated andvh osm th aay o i s n e made the fairest and that th ot the bss twoay is oppositetthbaet mostbyartgheuegme ndsethrieens derfawssuoPtPheesritelleipnissosivthi scale it can be 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 just proportion —in to the income. My Lords, there never was a gr e at er have you any right to throw mistake ; in the first place, notege equal proportion possessing moderate the burden of the whole taxation of the country upon persons who have large incomes ? Why should the tax paidin 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 p_roE y ort p io e n re — eba in 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, is just and fair, and that a man with an income of 10,00 0 /. a - y ear, she u l d pay 1,000/. to the tax,' is also just and fair ; each man pays in proportion to his income ; each man is taxed according to his means, but that is not enough to satisfy the advocates for a graduated scale. It is re ported that the proposed property tax is' to be three per cent., but for the sake of argument, and to show the absurdity of this graduated scale I will suppose it to be 10 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 2,0001. paying 10 per cent., just double the amount of tax paid by the man of I,OOCI. 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 3,0001. 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 1,0001. 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 2,000/. a year pays 20 per cent.; and the man pos sessed of 5,000/. 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 10,0001. is to pay at a tenfold rate, because he has ten times a greater income than the man of 1,000/. a year. And what would be the consequence of this plan ? Why, that you take the whole income together. The whole 10,000/. 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 50,0001. or 60,0001. a-year, the man possessed of such an income will have to pay half of it, and the man 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 2,000 L a-year a right to com plain if the man of 6,000/. a year,does not pay four times as much as he does, he having paid twice as much as the man of 1,0001. 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 fatter ? 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 2,0001., or 3,000/, 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. Bat 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 conclusion 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 conclusion, for I mean to show by that that your premises have been incorrect. But, my Lords, is this mode of taxation is this graduated scale adopted in other de partments of our finances ? Are people made, under these departments, to pay a greater rate be cause they happen to be rich, than others who have moderate incomes ? No ; the rule proceeds on a totally opposite foundation. The rich and the poor pay the same rates of duty ; true they do not pay the same amount, and they are in effect differently rated, and legitimately . FO; but the rate is the same. Then those ho maintain that there ought to be a graduated scale for making an income tax, mean neither more nor less than that the public income shall be raised from cer tain classes of the community, not from the community 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 poorest class, those living by their daily labour, ought to pay no tax except as a matter of choice—a tax that compels the people to pay for necessaries, being, by all experience, found contrary to every principle of justice and sound policy.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, speaking in the presence in which have the honour to stand, when I talk of the universality of the admission, as the deduction from all preceding experience, that a tax on the necessaries of life is a cruel injustice, and a gross absurdity.—(Cheers from the Earl of Radnor.) I ought. perhaps, to make one exception, being reminded by the cheers of my 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 the tax should affect all income more or less, but income in pro portion to its amount, and not by any graduating scale, the rate of tax Varying with the income, let us just for a moment consider what the inevitable consequences of such an income are; how deeply interested the community is in shaking itself loose from it at the earliest possible mo ment 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 spoken, 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 hberty of observing a little while ago, that many of those who are much enamoured with the graduated scale, rest their predilection for 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 obtaining 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 odious, this most hateful tax, to which every part of the community, the more they bring their minds to consider it, must always feel the greatest antipathy. The more the necessity, therefore, of making up your minds not to let it continue one year, one' day, or one hour 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 impest 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 framed, 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 aro 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 choice, for, let it come up from the other House in whatever objectionable shape, I must take it altogether, or reject it altogether. We cannot make the slightest alteration in it. We cannot alter an " and " or an " or. " If an income tax reaches us from the other House, and is 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 only the pecuniary interests, but the rights of the people. Everything relating to the machinery of the tax—all that relates to the punishments and penalties connected with it—all that relates to the duties of those engaged in levying it—all that regards the judicial or quasi-judicial part of the Act, will form part and parcel of the mea sure ; and upon all these portions of the Bill we should be incapable of offering 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 functions of this very House itself ? I do not think we shall be placed in such a situation. The public service requires an imme diate supply, and, 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 your 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 knox: , 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 as I do, the nocessity 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 shoul 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 us, 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 two, and send us one Bill as a money Bill, and another Bill not a mo ne y 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 saiil:3 answer, nave ' to the present Bill, that Lord GrenvGrenvillewith regard to Earl Grey, in the year 1809, when he otserv,:fl that in the vote of the other House of Parliamei.. 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 imposing the same rate on all incomes, justice is done to those who possess incomes of a different class. Yoa take 10 per cent. or three per cent. from the land lord, and the same from the person who is only a tenant, but 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 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 6001. rent, he has a profit of 300/. ? You are in search of profit—you intend to tax profit, nut 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 1,000/. 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 he 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 he 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, you step in, and with your income tax you make him pay precisely 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. idly Lords, if this is a hard case as respects the farmer —if this is a hard case as respects the trader—it is an infinitely harder case as respects the life annuitant. You are taxing the life annuitant as if he was possessed of the capital from which his whole annuity was raised, although he has no power of escaping from em barrassment by encroaching on the capital, but must be confined for his support solely to the annuity, which he receives. I know there is a great difficulty in apportioning the rate to meet the interests of these different parties. A man has an estate in fee simple of 5,0001. a-year ; he has the unlimited enjoyment of the produce of it, and may, if he deems it expedient, pay the income tax out of the capital. if he cannot do it out of the interest. Another man is only tenant for life ; he is tied up and cannot make his settlement ; he cannot place a charge upon the land beyond the period of his own incumbency, beyond your own dwelling ; and yet by the in ' come tax of 1816, which I had the good fortune to help to defeat, and which my Noble Friend opposite at that period defended, the man having the tee simple estate was called upon to pay no more than the tenant fur life, although, the first had a permanent interest in the estate, and could do with it just as he pleased, and the latter merely received an annuity for life out of it. Now I cannot help thinking that some middle course might be adopted. I do not wish that the life annuitant should escape free, far from 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 applies a thousand times stronger in the case of the professional man. I cannot conceive anything more deplorable than the situation of a professional person reduced to neces sity by the weight of such a tax as this—a tax which he cannot, if he is an honest man, es cape from—a tax which no honourable man would endeavour to escape from, but which he must be utterly incapable of paying, without being reduced to extremities, which it is painful to contemplate. Here is a person with nothing to support him, whose whole sub sistence and the means of providing subsistence for his family depends upon his own exertions. When illness, altered circumstances, and various other causes, without any fault of his own, may come to overwhelm—here is a person who cannot be so cer 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 one side,—l set them off against the chances of the trader who trades upon capital ; I set off the ha zards of the professional man, whether belonging to my own profession, or that of medicine, or the profession of the Church, were judgment or favour may operate in promoting a man ; 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 net the comparison I shall make. But the professional man is differently situated from the trader with regard to continuance of health, weakness of mind, following from a debilitated frame in the excessive exercise of profes sional duties ; disease coming upon him which 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, be taken into the account' before the decree finally goes forth which shall subject him to the same rate of tax to which the land, the funds, and the trade of the country, is about to be, I must say justly, because necessarily, subjected. If you make the per centage less upon those professions then in the case of the tenant in fee, even 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 centage to two, though you should increase it on others who have capital to deal with, and are able - to draw upon other resources or have other expedients to resort to, which the professional man has not—even though you were 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 \sill 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 have enough to supply the deficiency in the revenue. My Lords,_ it is a very dangerous thi ng t o 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 will 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 proposition—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 teat 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 average, 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 tax, as we all did. We considered it the very worse si Meet ' - 'cP chinery of the property tax in 1802. I detested the 1; 1 - ev l ' s:Lai had been imposed until then, and we utterly e the necessity of imposing it, contending that it out;ht te bra be discontinued at the end of the war. Feeling th i s s all admired the ingenuity by which all incomes 1, 70. L. lis made to pay, by levying the tax from those sti! had no interest in concealment. Thus P.' s 7. tenantst 1; levied the income of the landlord from the s and he deducted it from the rent, having no intere hiso by is con cealment, until you added a couns, e r-interest taking his own profits to be measur ed by rent. -15 that also was checked by other modes which enablest , to get at his rents and profits, with which h'e Pay' 'eJs s landlord. And, so the debtor had uo interest , a nd p hut bably no very great feeling for the credi.tore, , sfit he made him pay the tax , an d deduct it I that the creditor. This was the first time the a real income tax began to be levied ? What w as r s consequence of that ? The cons equence was that was` at ' soon you raised 10 or 11 millions. In the co urse • few years it rose to 16 millions. B u t take the taxes the two first schedules A and B ; that ia thed landlord and farmer's tax, and the bus on trades an professions, and these alone increased in GeV" ye a ar d as halt. 1807 to 1814—no less than three mart olls n o d half. 1,-("s:lv, I am putting aside the Wilde ...I.", the tax on official Sstlariee. But taking only those ts:r ok e il t u r 's and deducting one ten.!. l for the depreciation of Ol ii .c: tr , rency, therewas a clear increase ofmore than three mi , °L o s There was ah increase of somewhere about 2,000, during the last year. Now, observe, Ido not say t s f: t was an increase equally upon trade and land. There,Ph,.,, been on the whole an increase of nearly 7,000,00 a ityi two years ; there had been an increase in one year sst , 3,440,000/., and in the other year of 3,447,000/. But increase arose from the fact, that the preceding f°ltlrret.°)s' • five years were unfavourable years ; and in the lisp next year—in the year 18 14— there had been au crease of upwards of 400,000/. in the tax . o ', tes • upon trades and professions, which was nearly eqnai or the increase in the tax upon the property of land' stn` it and tenants. There had at the same time been j a : t i l ts ' provement in the commerce of the country; aiss Tip years 1811, 1812, and 1813, the comme.rmal,s you tress being then at an end. Now, my Lords, " ie , find that there was this constant increase, not o °'-', flo a the income tax levied upon land, but also in the i• afte r tax levied upon trade, it follows of necessity that 11,0 rb the termination of the war there must have been s 9 he increase at least going on in the taxable in come of tot';, country ; and even supposing you Were assume that all the improvements made in 2. 0 5 ; ' 4 culture were to go for nothing—even supposing ulti were to assume that all the new land broug ht intolto, r vation could only be set off against the lo we ringwere to. in some parts of the country—even supposingyou assume that the lowering of the price of agri",ces tural produce had made so great a diftee nt, both in the farmer's profits, and in the landlord's 'teas and that you must set off these circumstances agalL s- ge the consequences of the great improveme nts in which have been everywhere and constantly b"' on all over this country . every year during the years that have elapsed since the end o f the 11'"' then you would still have to calculate upon an iner eils° t o in the taxable income derived from the trade, manufacture, and the commerce of the cottavk in all its 'branches," and that increase taus iss ois necessity have been very considerable. 'iios Lordships will be pleased to recollect : is 1 25,000,0001. a year of war taxes have been given during this time. The increase to which I hav e refe dos took place while you were raising war taxes t°„ s s amount of 25,000,0001. a year. I am talking of the S',S o l sum, which amounted to from 24 , 000 , 000 !. to 25,0 scat 00, 0 u ? that tax was levied during the latter years of the And notwithstanding all that enormous amount of ear, t , withdrawn from profitable employment, and t t he withstanding all the enormous expenses 0 ' no t' war—the lavish expenses of the war-lio withstanding all that enormous expenditure, ``'' o f did not go to increase our productive capital Productive resources, and, consequently, the ta:oust, income of the country ; when you find that, not income withstanding all that, the income of the cona"11 did go on increasing, it necessarily follows, ithsers appears to me, that on the remission of those taxes t t he must have been some considerable additions made tolis taxable income of the country. But for my purl:0010y not necessary to show that there must have been , t s enormous increase—it is necessary for m e to aP tto t that there must have been an increase to an arl t se which ought to relieve tenants from their share °' Is e income tax, owners of land from their share, and P.O . 1 fessional incomes from their share. It is only necessarse me to show that there must have been so great an iee r t se 1 of the taxable income of the country, as must rais e ;ol estimate of the amount to be derived from a t ` . ,. 5 ; 0 3 per cent., sufficiently to enable you to sP'''''," t os little to • the farmer, and to spare a little to c r t se fessional incomes, whether of the lawyer, °' s , o te physician, of the ' divine, or of the literarY, Zoe I hope your Lordships will be of opinion that I ' o il made out a sufficient case, in the first place, t° P!:. de' on your Lordships to record on your journal ' s, Y o '.ol termination that an income tax, it' it be at all ne e % by to be imposed, shall not survive that necessity, e', 4 "s po sle a fraction of ayear ; and in the next place, that an '"w.seo tax so imposed shall contain no variation of rate as bets.o, one amount of income and another amount o f b ets but only a reasonable and moderate variation of rate of between incomes of one description and incoll ic- it oi' another description, believing that incomes of life ae: i ss tants and professional men, do not stand upon the t ',: t sl, grounds as those gerived from property and coPi t so I will now say a few words of the Most odious part ° es s, income tax, I mean its inquisitorial character—(hail' hear)—and as the tax itself falls most unissuallY 0 ° ferent classes of the community, as it is roost unequs'its all its pressure, so it is most unequal ol loo st inquisitorial character, and the inquisition falls st sl' unequally on different classes. What is it to the.Le is holuer to allow it to be known how much his ine ° ; o o the funds is, which it is impossible must not be I ts , o o to all mankind? But at all events, what is it to P e . .5.0 ,4 in public offices to have their income known, it bell:s t op well known what their income is as the. thiels of the officer for the performance of the duties o i l r to they are paid ? What is it even to the landh° c r e a ser have his income known, in comparison with the trader t he and the professional man ? The incumbra,nees it 0 property of the one are a secret, and perhalt o es. g , sufficient pain for him that those incutab'-oe? exist, but it must be also utter ruin to th e trades his embarrassments became known.—(Cheers.) not from any feelings of morbid sensibility pride that makes him shrink from havi° 11t H , a t circumstances pryed into ; but it reay be t° „ e s matter of life and death to have the 100 cular state of his circumstances kno wn. f o re is the consequence ? He is obliged to 1 0 g, much larger income than he has — he is ob li g e in an account that sinks his losses ; but if he said„ (41/' no income he would be in the Gazette next week 'e•e'stif. ing so. But then it is said these things are told to P o ny able persons—they are concealed and privately c0„11,.„00; cated to a board— the facts will be known only of!„" sioners— but he did not choose those Commissioner'S'3 it might hap Pen by some one out of all the chaTe-,ell the world that those Commissioners might be !“„, e l -0 05 persons from whom, of all persons, he might des° . ',oS ° . t particularly . to conceal the state of his affairs. Th e 'are l , the subject is mentioned it strikes every one. The h i- s od is thought of, the more it adds to the horror vshic' so o ot 'f tax must create—increasing the repugnance all 01 '015 feel against it, and only augmenting, if it be er ts vb ic t a r augmentation, the reluctance-and bitter pain sys''. every man must regard the absolute necessity whl e „ sP told exists, that he shall pay such a tax. r r il i i t - o ti.„4 . ought to make clear, undeniable, utterly unhe''SetP"S the resolution of the Government but w A '' 0; the Government so resolves or not, ti "g o th f care —it ought to make clear and str°s;le resolution of the Parliament and of the sht this country, that for one hour after the neccss'"'„ifer'Se, have ceased, so odious an impost will no longer.be:ris,4, to endure. My Lords, that it should fall on " t si° 3- • who can afford to pay their share of the public b e 0, every one must admit ; nor do I mean to thro w V.' a single word in endeavouring to show this oblicrotio:o but I will say now, that it gives me unspeaka ble t cation to have been informed that the senti°l-seell, only of your Lordships, nor of the country at ltirbls, that their wishes and our wishes have been 11° graciously anticipated—(Cheers)—long before W e o istf' s opportunity of breathing those wishes—that the res s p o o has been taken that that • burden which necessitYso can justify the Government in asking the Parha°high,cif a L s o w r impose—that that burden shall be borne by th e r j ;in it ts has by beenthe a humblestfiction — c a las d s ee .— or ( o H u ea r, h e '' s f w i t f Constitution, that the res . ponsibility of ever fi y et P ia° , ll; : f f il s lice il devolves on the Ministers, but that ()Very It f3tl'o°oo and favour proceeds from the Monarch hilaseh- tiit' t si this occasion Is peak not of that fiction of the Cons7o,s but of the fact of truth, when I say that the ? f ,,, tb L i o L an o y r - d o s t h h i e p r s oc at c a as m io o n s , t l u s n h r o ea u s ld on s a a herself, and not the Minister is to be thalsk eu s e iiF n r gracious act.—(Cheers.) My Lords, if it W?„ ( sif' is , but 0° is unreasonable e l that cn casion of such moment, and so deeply interests whole community, I can hardly allow even the r etc li t g l ti b l a ; d (WO - 0 0 s tio feel for your Lordships to betray me into making a, fl e s oogie I know that in the discharge of my duty l i haL s ehte no selfish advantage ; on the contrary , I ° a ' this ted my animosity, my implacable objectio n to / ss oo to the pressing necessities of my cou ntryeae ll " c ts lee s i cl4 sought no party favour, for I have stated do dj the one hand differing from those of my Noble ;s i seill opposite, and on the other, such as my on this side of the House, are not likely have setais have sought no favour out of doors, for I e per, face alike against an open robbery of tL: ce o' 0 creditor, and against the disguised injustl t 0,, graduated scale. I have discharged ray du tf , se' t o Member of Parliament in the manner, and on , 1 , 1 and at the season, which much reflection_ive sc,os subject, and an anxious attention to the schulbelteo„ of the question, have taught me t e oc eas i ,S , is the fittest for meeting the exigencies of the ~r s in and Inow close the remarks I have to make tor t " 1 5 ships with this one additional regret, O a which seemed now inevitable, hit' 0 0_ 4 ' $, ought to be our resource in war, also ... se o es, s , for time of war, should, unhappily, and from , Noblacce etof sity, be compelled to be resorted to in time ! to r These have been my opinions ever since th .ir e Y.rherfot;;s w h en my friend, the late Mr. v.? . 030 Ie said, in these memorable words —"Ley Decree always be wedded to war, not only . that the may be relieved from such a burden in tinse l s ss refr'i; i 9 but that the people—that humanity—may hav e ' e ha ncl'de to dread a time of war, when those in svh° s es es' s 'id waging of war or the keeping of peacernay l'"fe d and when the people are made aware of the 0; 1 0 . d war may entail upon them." ' This, 1 12 9 esieSi o doubles the regret with which one sees such ' h o t —such a magnificent national resource as tb i : o f lltlo, time of war—anticipated and used in t ,. 32l " r eit I may add, that the bare knowledge by thy m o- world that we hare this splendid resource ell vot . 6 ) kit 4