The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-08 00:00:00

-.-..- [00.? tboi annually to 700,0001? There T;ai another proposal put forward by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, a proposal fir a repeal of the malt-tax, which would entail a loss to the r evenue of not less than 5,000,000/. The Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Osteordshire (Ms. Henley) had told him that he (the Chancellor of tee Exchequer) was acting unjustly in proposing to reduce taxes which were P a id by the consumer, and yet the lion. Gentleman and the great party with which he was connected wished for the repeal of a duty paid by the consem-r, and under which a sum of not less than 5,000,0001. was annually raised. Did Hon. Geutlemen opposite believe , that if tha a Proposal were carried it would be possible to repe a l the t income-tax? —(H e ar hear.) His belief was, that if t axes on c onsumpt i on were judiciously reduced, the ve nue derived f rom t h em wou ld revive, and that if the national credit were to be staked on our existing taxa hen, it was wise to remove from that taxation its most objectionable features; for the more popular they made their taxes, the more certain it was that they would be able to raise them.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to ask Ilunourable Gentleman opposite which tax was the more likely to be permanent—the window-tax, with all its sins on its head, or the house-tax, to which no Objection had as yet been stated ? He asked whether it was likely that the duty on coffee could be made more productive by reducing it to such an amount as would Pr ! te ct• he hoped, that adulteration of the article which had recently taken place, or by leaving it at its P r esent amount, under which the consumption had fallen ° 5 to the e xtent o f 10,000, 000 lb s . o r 12,000,000 lbs. within the last few ? felt perfectly convinced that years th under the reduction of duty which he proposed, i ne e Y would have a larger amount of coffee introduced re ,o this country, and a consequent improvement o' the " h ue, so that the course that he was taking was stri . 't'Y in accordance with that which Parliament had of , s , "" years pursued. He hal stated the other night of r apidly the revenue had risen under the pressu re 7,oo the i ncome-tax. and that a f ter th e r e peal of o ' oool . of taxes the ordinary sources of revenue and realised their usual amount between the year 1844 ; 141 the year 1850. W a s not that likely to happen ? and had not the Right Hon. Gentleman that Z might given th em som e reason to believe that that (er t occur, eve n t o an extent beyond what be (the aneellor of the Exchequer) anticipated ? He ad aste/l d b that the revenue of the last quarter f urn e tter than any estimate which had been w had to him by the officers of his depart mast"ad led him to suppose, and that every material a n o, e de e id .ot the revenue for the quarter showed a ed h e , Improvement in the condition of the people. To l eaf :" Was that improvement owing? He believed that it ies„!, w ittg to a wise legislation, by which the springs of th ati ," r Y had been relieved; and let it be remembered that tat " 4 4 haepened under the imposition of the income tont. lie said that it would be wise on their parts to e a 'cue that tax until they should have removed or re ap other objectionable character; and that taxes of a more then at was the course which he proposed they should tele e P r s ue- Let them look at what happened in the 4,00 ( ' s Sugar. The consumption of sugar had been about 6,es s T s °o cwts. in the year 1844, and it had been about e s , "AO cwts, last year. And was it no benefit to the , re a "body of the people of this country that that in talt", °I 50 Per cent, in the consumption should have eff ss 4 , Place? Again, the late Sir Robert Peel had spr•,,,‘, e d a considerable reduction in the duty on foreign te, - "s; and yet, three years after that reduction, c ome revenue derived from that source had be ish great as ever, while the consumption of Bri at is colonial spirits had increased. Let them look vets e xcise revenue, which was usually taken as the la g test of the condition of the people. During the % %o r Years the excise duties had been reduced by an hi ghe st of 1,500,0001, an d yet the Excise revenue was the r at present than it had been at the commence ° erea. ' that p er i o d. On the sth of April last the _ . a 35, „2e in the excise revenue had amounted to about er t roit and to that might be added the whole amount asi e 2hrick duty, which had not been paid last year, but at ie had been paid in the year preceding. With the hoe ,te h s ts o r the amount of the brick duty there would sue j el l an increase in the excise duty last year to the thath of not less than 835 0001. He had already stated e d id not expect that duty would be so large in Iltir present , because it was a bad one for malting th P° €;" 3 : Herhad quoted those cases in order to show Year °f the commercial legislation they had of late t h e 8 8 adopted. Be would ask whether it was not likely h er 4 111 . e results would follow from the proposals which Majesty's Government then submitted to the House? ere s etae not the reductions which they proposed of the 'wi t h character as those which had already been attended d eti so much success? The proposed reductions in the th e on coffee and timber were precisely similar; and ~,ioobstitution of a moderate house-tax for the present wh i u s cvs-tax wou ld ten d ma t e ri a lly to promote that le t i r e s " had been the main object in all their recent legis eitCc--th e improvement of the moral and material con -15 of the great mass of the people; while no mea e.e tho could afford such wide advantage from one end of h 3 oe untry to the other. Some complaints had been NZ 4° that he had yielded to the taunts which had ra directed against the inadequacy of his former pro ' gals for the relief of the agricultural interest, and some Peri - 01 : 1 5 seemed to think that he had given up the remise ef i of the duty on seeds and the transfer of a portion the charges for lunatic asylums to the Consolidated sr 4 d, in consequence of some sneers which had been b'reeted against these proposals. But he had been told Y some Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the reduction of til s duty on seeds would be a hardship and not a benefit othe agricultural interest. With regard to the proposal 1 ' transferring a portion of the expenses of lunatic )4 B' t uras to the Consolidated Fund, he should observe et If it wer e t o b e t a k en i n the sense in which it had so taken by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuekinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) on Friday last he should Bard it as a very unjust and improper measure. If it t er ! e to be taken as the first step towards trans tsLog the w h o l e ma i ntenance o f the poor of this coun e4to the p u bli c revenue , h e cou ld only say that he th e 'd conceive nothing more fatal than such a step to ltris i re"P e ritY, and even to the very existence, of the N is '''. empire. But he would venture to say that any le,u e t a rY gentleman who might compare the amount of the t, he would derive from the proposed change in derZidow-tax, with the amount of benefit he would Pos t e,' 'rons a transfer to the Consolidated Fund of a th at le of the expenses for lunatic asylums, would find Ili sh " s e would have reason to rejoice at the change. The Ronnurable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) ettertol intohem that he would not, upon that occasion, 0 1 of e any consideration of the question of protection te eot 4 ree trade, and that the House had at that mo to hi "thing to do with that question. But it appeared e e ,,,C l (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was a b 11 °Porta t point for theto consider, whether, y n sea se t 4 'lng the income-tax, they would not render ne sop"nY the imposition of a duty on corn, such as was Lord sse,d Stanley Lord Stanley and his party : —(Hear.) wish - "IoleY had certainly announced that it was his deed the such a duty; and it would be strange in aeala If the Noble Lord had not consulted the chief det es e m i l l; of his party upon such a point before he had Est C n ed on making that announcement of his policy. th at .! (the Chanc e ll or o f the Exchequer) should say, ,s oh l, the Right Hon. Gentleman did not approve of of that a course he would be gladly received in the ranks t ot t free -trade party, which already included, accord- Of „; the admission of Lord Stanley, every public man ' c l l ex • Right pertenee, with the single exception of the Aete t i o : - `"°- Gentleman. Now, with respect to the im teee,`` of a duty upon corn, he should say there was no aoetrable measure so objectionable in his eyes. It th e P r oduce" deep and universal dissatisfaction among fe the mass of the people of this country; and he con liaß'c that he should rather witness any amount of fal eohaT! in rent than such an evil as that. He p ose, red that the reductions of taxation he had pro of the were of pr i mary i mportance; b u t if the proposal %tea Right Hon. Gentleman were adopted, these mea he W ollid be imp oss ibl e , w hil e it would be found that carsi o l ei ne of the Right Hon. Gentlman could not be ekre beneficially into operation. If people, then, Vre et rontented in a case where they derived a benefit, hoe, they be better pleased when they derived isienee!t_t al I? —(Hear, hear.) If he did, he would find km: greatly mistaken. If the proposal of the nonourable Gentleman were adopted there ti on 'in be an end of that relief on articles of conzumpe ---6 • 1 1 end of that relief which he proposed to grant th e ,g, t ving faciliti es f or i mprov i ng t h e d we lli ngs o f tsostlonouring people in the co u ntry, a nd an end of every seined in that direction in which they had so sue- Oiling proceeded for so many the results of tit t'leh they were years, now enjoying in that general prospe -3' and peace which he was happy to hear the Right dig4l. Gentleman ad • so mit; and it was his belief that the ussion of that evening should end in favour of the tht on. Gentleman's proposition,it would debar the i e ° ,ernment from carrying th. i s - s uta opinion, were best calculate°h. h d ir propositions,w t ic ue , ti t 'erests of this country, and especially romote ther of ° le interestswhich they were to that portion more particularly bound et (Hear, hear.) Is o '"f r . PRINSEP said the party to which the Right l os Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer be thrged had found themselves in a state of difficulty which foreatened th e di sso lution of the G overnment on a is t t ler Occasion when there was a deficiency, and were re it% same difficulty now that they had a surplu s . Th e Of R °4 on both occ a sions was the same—namely, a want Isii"zed principles, which made the G o vernment like a ese s it t sea without compass. In F ebruar y the Chan. 2,5 0 l of the Exchequer had stated the surplus at 11Th" and now stated it at 1 , 890 0001. 1 11 -13 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, lagorder to re p vent the Honourable Member from go. he had stated. I,blundering on, he would repeat what CHANCELLOR said he had made no blunder. t a k'd ""ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged . 01 1 for the had escaped him unin estons„ expression which for the pur kee f '" 3', but thoughtitbetter to interpose ap t ,: Preventing the Honorable Member from arguing th erroneous stated at h eous assumption. What he had I 6 estimatedBsi the surplus for the year ending April, bly 1 ; 9 " 2,600,0001 ., an d that next year it wou ld probe -1,892,000- 11 4: r. 11RI NSEP thanked the Right Honourable Gen -411 fOr • lam er hi on, explanation, but if he had allowed him to ° ll , he would have found that he had thoroughly rstood the(l443orabl matter from first to last. The Right Irak ) , „, e Gentleman had stated the surplus in Feb- Olt% f 0 V5 50 0,0001., and now he stated the probable sur riled os toe curret year at 1,892,000 L, and if to this was or t hltarnotint n to be paid over to the Commissioners wade I_,eeduetion of the National Debt, 630,0001., it trie un k it about 2,500,0001. Then there was the sita, : . _t r o be kept back to meet the expenses of the the epi zi ,end the claim of the East India Company— cleist7 s with regard to the latter, it certainly was no Llsotiee"_,Jesterday, but one which had been under the The the Right Hon. Gentleman for eight years. Part "t• Member for Montrose objected saw of t h to apply any e ;l lR y e_ surplus to the payment of the debt, and he kot,otshrortie in his objection. It was nothing more, 't collo tul making an investment at 3 per cent., and tro t ace the wisdom of taking the money out of THE SUN, the pockets of an impoverished people for such a pur pose. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman shown debts in volving the payment of a higher interest, he would have agreed to the appropriation of n m Ilion even, or more, but when he purchased at 97, which was price of the day, the expediency of the outlay might ve,y fairly be questioned. Tile Right Hon. Gentleman had reminded them that within the lest 20 years, 20,000,000/. had been added to the capital of the debt; a great calamity, no doubt, in a time of peace, but the Right Hon. Gentleman omitted to point out that during the same interval a very large reduction had also been made in the interest, which more than covered the addition. The last loan raised by the Right Hon Gentleman was for Ireland, and that was raised at 87, about five years ago. Surely it could not be good policy to borrow at 8 per cent. and after five years to pay such a price as 97. It was, in face, paying upwards of 6 per cent. for their money. Besides, by pur chasing in this stock they would force up the price, which, however popular it might be in the City and amongst the holders of the stock itself, would confer no ad vantage on the public. He doubted, also, whether the Government would thereby gain any facility in future financial operations, because long before the Chan cellor of the Exchequer came to bargain an effect would be produced on the funds, as in the case of the Irish loan. In his speech on Friday the Right Hon. Gentle man declared the principle on which his measures were based to be to diminish the burden of taxation which pressed on the labouring classes, and to relieve the in dustry of the country. The principle was good, but when the measures of the Right Hon. Gentleman were tested by it they would not bear investigation.—(Hear, hear.) The alteration in the window duties was a very proper one, but would not relieve one single labourer or working man.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed a reduction in the coffee duties, and with respect to this part of his policy he hoped to have another opportunity of making a few observations; but he could not help pro testing against the precipitation with which he proposed to strike off the differential duty on foreign coffee at once, without notice or warning. But were the masses of the people consumers of coffee?—(Cries of "Yes.") No; they consumed chicory, and he did not deny that the reduction of the duty might perhaps cause genuine coffee to be mixed with it to a certain extent. The reduction of the timber duties might benefit those engaged in building houses and ships, but were these the masses? He war, therefore, justified in charging the Government with want of principle in their financial measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the advocate of direct as opposed to indirect taxation. Taxes were a part of a man's expenditure which regulated the rest, and he circumscribed his comforts and enjoyments according to the amount which he was obliged to con tribute under this head. If the revenue were raised by indirect taxation, and every article could be taxed, every man according to his expenditure would pay alike. But it was impossible to tax every commodity which entered into consumption, and certain articles were therefore selected, such as tea, tobacco, malt, sugar, and various other articles, and those entered largely into the con sumption of the lower orders, and they therefore paid more than they ought. This was a class which deserved protection, and the only way to give it was to put a tax on the price of the articles they produced, thus throw ing on the entire community that which this class bad been compelled to pay in advance.—(llear.) But if by financial legislation it was so contrived that they could not thus indemnify themselves, they would be compelled to work and labour at the rate of the cheapest labour with which they were obliged to compete, and would be, moreover, compelled to pay the whole of the tax ation out of those reduced wages.—(Hear, hear.) The policy of the party to which he (Mr. Prinsep) belonged sought to enable these classes to support the taxation imposed upon them. The question at every election had been, and the question at the general elec tion would be, whether they should enable the producing labourer of this country to add the taxation he paid to the price of the article he produced, or leave him to the mercy of a competition with the foreigner who produced under different circumstances.—(hear.) That was the true issue, though the Right Hon. Gentleman thought peeper to treat it as a question of a ss. duty on corn. What was the policy which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute? He asked them to continue the income-tax to avoid the necessity of such a taxation by means of customs duties as would alone enable the la bourer to relieve himself from the burdens to which he was subject. But the Right Hon. Gentleman would tell them that if they allowed the taxation to be added to the price they would throw the burden on the entire popu lation, and sacrifice the good of the whole community for the advantage of the few. But the fallacy of that was apparent. Every one who was a producer depended on the price of the particular commodity on which he was employed for his profits or his wages. Upon that price, therefore, whether high or low, he depended for his living. All the producing classes were in this predicament, and if you told a man belonging to those classes cheapness will be a benefit to you, among the rest he would reply, " I must sell before I can buy." (Hear, hear.) The best of taxes was a tax on ex penditure, whereas the income-tax included in its opera tion the profits which a man made in trade, and what he e had laid by also, and proceeded somewhat on the prin ciple of the Chinese Government with respect to gapnab• ling n houses,winnings. where i3 l u O t i per f t h cent. was et i n taken wasfr great t o oal everytax ing the rent of the landlord and interest derived from the funds, the objection was much stronger against the following schedule, under which the tenant farmer was made to pay on the amount of rent without reference to his actual profits.—(Hear, hear.) The case of the pro fessional man also, who paid on his entire income, was hard, though he thought that if a professional man chose to keep up the style of the nobleman he ought to pay in proportion. He ought to pay on his expendi ture, but ought not to be compelled to pay on that which he had laid by for his family. The con trary principle was nearly allied to commuism. The Right Honourable Gentleman had very properly commuted the window tax for a tax on houses; but if he had commuted it fairly, he would have obtained the same amount, and the total amount of the surplus might have been applied to any other object, for instance, to the relief of one-third of the income-tax. To that tax he objected because its continuance was justified upon grounds which no longer existed. With respect to coffee, as he had observed, he protested against bringing Cey lon and other colonies in which coffee was cultivated into competition with Java and other foreign countries, for, as it took 10 years to bring coffee plantations to maturity, the proprietors were at all events entitled to have the duty lowered by degrees, as in the case of sugar. As to timber, the Right Hon. Gentleman forgot that the supply could not be increased ad libitum, but must be the work of many years, and the lowering of the duty would only serve to put more money into the pockets of the Baltic proprietors, on whose will the supply must depend. Objecting altogether, therefore, to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he should give his cordial support to the motion of the Right Hon Member for Stamford.—(Hear.) Mr. F. PEEL said he was quite conscious that there were a great number of Members in that House with whose sentiments upon a question like the present it was much more important for the House to be acquainted than with his own; but as the Right Hon. Member for Stamford had stated that they had to make their option between his plan and the plan of the Government; and as the conclusion to which he had brought his mind, after giving the subject the best consideration of which he was capable, obliged him to dissent from the amend ment of the Right lion. Gentleman, while, at the same time he was far from being able to express an unqualfied approval of the financial policy of her Majesty's Go vernment, he hoped he might be permitted to state very shortly the grounds upon which he rested his conclusions, and the vote which he was about to give. Under whet circumstances was it that the proposition for the renewal of the income-tax was brought before them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House on Friday night that he wished to abide by the estimates which he had made on the first financial statement, and it would be in the recollection of the House that the Right Honourable Gentleman estimated the pro bable income of the then ensuing and now current year, ending the sth April, 1852, speaking in round numbers, setting aside altogether the income-tax, at 46,575,0001., and the expenditure within the same period at about 50,250,0001., leaving therefore a standing deficit of about 3,500,000/. True, this deficit underwent consi derable diminution in the course of the present year, because the Government were able to take credit for half a year of income-tax and half a year's produce of stamp duties in Ireland, and these together would have the effect of reducing the deficit in the course of the present year to about 847,0001., and it was for the purpose of repairing this deficit, and a deficit of 3,500,0001. in future years, that the Right Hon. Gentleman invited the House to consent to the re-imposition of the income-tax for a further period of three years. He was favourable to the principle of an income tax.—(Hear.) He was favourable to it because it combined a system of direct with indirect taxation, which afforded the means of making the wealthier classes contribute in proportion to their means to the revenue required for defraying the public expen diture. He did not think that the proportion between direct and indirect taxation was disturbed by tho impo sition of an income-tax. He was quite aware that pro perty so called was required to bear a very considerable imposition, in the shape of assessed taxes, of the local taxation of the country. On the other side of the ac count no man could be more sensible than he was of the immense advantage which the labouring classes of the country had derived from the recent modifications in the fiscal, financial, and commercial system.—(Hear, hear.) No man was more deeply impressed with or more ready to avow the immense impetus given to the manufacturing industry and commercial enterprise of the country by taking off the duties that weighed with un due severity upon the springs of industry, as they were called, and the sources of employment. What had been the haagnitude and extent of the changes in the co urse of had nine Tea"? Between 1842 and the close of 1850 t he y remitted taxes upon their linen manufactures, upon the raw material of manu factures, and upon the food of the people, to no lessen extent than 10i millions sterling. Hon. Gentlemen could see that for themselves in the re turns moved for by his Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Well, had that great reduction of taxation been attended with any corresponding diminution of produce in the great branches of revenue out of which those duties, supposing they had remained, would have been paid? So far from the produce of the Customs and Excise, out of which they were paid, being reduced, they were nosy as productive in 1851 as they were in 1842, before those great changes were commenced. In 1842 the produce of the Customs and Excise was 36,140,0001,, in 1849 it was 37,271,0001., and in 1850 the gross produce, not deducting those charges which were incurred by the collection in its way to the re venue, was 37,365,0001., so that so far from there being a reduction to the extent of 10,500,0001., as m i g h t have been expected, the produce had increased nearly I,2oo,oool.—(Hear, hear.) lie would say that a simple fact of that kind spoke language more forcibly then any that could flow from the most gifted i he i lips of —t told of ncrease thd e increase of employment &ad of industry; t amount of wages at the disposition of the working classes; and it told also of the increased command which they had acquired over the comforts, the conveniences, and the necessaries of life.—(Hear, hear.) But there was also another test—they were able to ascertain ac curately the increased and incressing amount of the in dustry and labour of the country that had been expended in the production of articles intended for the foreign consumer. What was the case with regard to their foreign trade? From 1835 to 1842 it had remained nearly stationary. The average amount of the declared value of their exports was about 49,500,0001. starling. In 1842 commenced the great change in their commer cial legislation, and from that perio down to the pre sent time there had been a rapid and progressive increase in the declared value of the foreign trade. In 1843 it was 52,250,0001.; in 1847, it was 58,750,0001.; in 1849, it was 63,500,0001.; and in the year just concluded, 1850, it exceeded 71,000,0001. sterling.—(Hear, hear.) But while he made all these concessions he was anxious the House should bear in mind that they had still an enormous revenue from indirect taxation, and that which was indirect, to be productive, must be laid upon the chief articles of the subsistence of the people. Take, for instance, the Customs revenue. The produce of that was 22,000,0001. sterling, and the House should be aware that of that large sum no less an amount than 20,000,0001., or 10.11ths, was the produce of the duties levied upon seven articles, which were articles of subsistence of the great mass of the people. If they took tea, coffee, or spirits (he meant foreign and colonial rum and brandy), wine, tobacco, and corn—for although the duty on corn was only a nominal one of one shilling, yet such was the demand and such the consumption, that it produced an appreciable amount to the public revenue —these seven articles yielded 20,000 000/. out of the 22,000,0001. of Customs revenue. He did not know how many articles there were in the tariff—he dared to say some hundreds, but all of them put together produced hardly more than the cost of collection. So it would al ways be; and if they placed back those 450 articles that had been struck out by the Act of 1845 they would hardly pay the cost of collection. What was the infer ence he drew from that? If they were to raise five mil lions additional taxation, and not raise it by means of a direct tax, but by an indirect one, they must impose that indirect tax upon one or more of the prime articles of subsistence of the people—they must reverse the prin ciple of their recent commercial legislation, and re vert to that system of protection which for so long a time they had permitted to obstruct and retard the growth, and progress, and development of the resources of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let the advantage of the income-tax be what it might, the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Stamford would prevent their taking it into consideration et all; he would stop them on the threshold, and why? Because, he said, the faith of Parliament was pledged on the subject—that Parlia ment had given its good faith to discontinue the income tax after the expiration of a limited period. Granted. True, the Right Hon. Gentleman was willing to allow them just as much of the income-tax as would bring the income level with the expenditure; but that he could not do without doing violence to his principle, which went to the extent that the duties levied under the in come-tax were granted and renewed for temporary pur poses and for a limited period, and that Parliament was bound to abide by its declared intention to discontinue the income-tax. Now he must enter a preliminary ob jection against the statement that Parliament could enter into any compact with the people, fettering the discre tion of some future Parliament on the subject of finance, and binding it not to entertain any proposition for rais ing any portion of the public revenue in a manner which was most in harmony with the real interests of the country, and, it necessary, by means of au income tax. A similar argument was urged in 1842 against the imposition of the income-tax at all. It was said that the income-tax by common un derstanding was reserved for the great emer gency of war—that it was a proposition never heard of, entertained, or conceded in time of peace, and should be reserved for those great occasions when the relations of this country with foreign nations were tither altogether broken off or temporarily suspended. And the answer made to that argument in support of the Right Hon. Gentleman's resolution was that Parliament could judge of the exigency for itself—if it thought it necessary, in order to maintain the public credit of the country, and to keep up the establishments in a proper state of effi ciency, that it should be imposed. Do not let Parlia ment' be deterred from acting up to its duty by the fallacious, delusive argument of a compact entered into for fettering its discretion and binding its freedom of action.—(Hear, hear.) He was not at all prepared to admit the facts involved in the resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman, still more to admit the inferences he drew from them. The Right Hon. Gentleman cited ex tracts from individual Members, but he would say they were far from carrying out the conclusions to which he wished to arrive. He (Mr. Peel) thought, when tat he he spoke of the declared intentio ns : of Parliament, that would have been able to point out some act which would speak in an effective manner the sense of the Legislature. He wondered he did not refer to the proceedings in the Parliament of 1816; in that year Lord Bexley then Mr. Vansittart, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward a proposition for imposing the income tax. That proposition excited great opposition, and the chief ground was the common understanding of the country that the income-tax should not be renewed after the expiration of the war and the conclusion of a treaty of peace. The opposition brought forward a number of speeches from individual members of Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to be bound by them, and showed that Pitt, Addington, and Grenville had „mortgaged the produce of these duties for several years after the peace, for the purpose of repaying loans borrowed during the war. The opposition was trium phant; the income-tax was rejected, and why? Because the opposition was able to point to a section in the Act of 1803, which provided that the income-tax was to be continued so long as the war lasted, and was not to be afterwards renewed. The Right Honourable Gentle man brought nothing of the kind forward, and he also disputed, as he had said, the inference he drew from his facts. He said the tax had reference to a temporary emergency, the expense of the China war and the remedying some of the financial blunders of the Ad minibtration that retired in 1841. But he did not say that these were the grounds on which the Govern ment themselves rested the imposition of the income-tax, and he (Mr. Peel) could confidently state that the real financial.policy of the Government of 1841, as developed in 1845, was, that by means of an income-tax the Go vernment might be enabled to take off taxes infinitely more oppressive, burdensome, and vexatious, than the income-tax. The principle of the financial policy of the Government was, that by means of the income-tax they might effect great reforms in the financial and commer cial policy of the country. The first leading principle was to take off the duty on the food of the people, and then the duties on the importation of the raw materials of their manufactures—these principles were acted upon with great vigour and great aptitude of design, but he did not say that the policy was brought to a completion; they took off the duty on sheep and cotton-wool on the express ground that they formed the material of the chief staple manufactures, but he could not say the policy was completed while there remained a heavy protective diffe rential duty, amounting to sd. per cubic foot, on timber, which was one of the materials of their manufactures. He could not say that the policy was complete which took off the duty on sugar on the ground that it entered into the subsistence of the mass of the people, while there still remained the heavy duty of 2s. 2id. per pound on tea, amounting to 200, 300, or 400 per cent. on the cheaper sorts, which were those consumed by the lower class. — (Hear, hear.) Still less would he say that the policy was complete which took off the excise duty on glass, and by the removal of excise restrictions gave a rapid de velopment to that manufacture, while there remained a duty, characterised by Adam Smith as one of the four necessaries of life, taxed in his time by the British Go vernment, a most important article which entered into a great variety of manufactures—he meant soap.—(Hear, hear.) If these were the temporary exigencies to which the Right Honourable Gentleman referred, he could not say that they had passed away, and ho could not vote fur the resolution on such grounds. He should give his vote in favour of the renewal of the income-tax to enable the Government to carry out these reforms to completion. That led him to consider what were the inducements held out by the Government to obtain the consent of the House to the imposition of the income-tax. They were of a threefold character—they want to repair a deficit, to retain a sur plus, and to remit taxation. First, as to repairing a de ficit, there was this advantage in taking the discussion now, instead of at an earlier period of the session, that when the first financial statement was made they were obliged to take upon the credit and faith of the Govern ment the correctness of the estimates laid before them. Since then the House had been in Committee of Ways and Means; estimates had been agreed to in Committee of Supply, and they had now ascertained that, but for the income-tax, there would be a deficit of 800,0001. With respect to the appropriation of the surplus, he agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose that econo mically there was no gain in paying such a tax as a tax upon soap, or a protective duty on the import of timber, to apply the produce to the reduction of the National Debt, because taxes of that sort took out of the pockets of the public more than they bronght into the Exchequer. At the same time there was a great moral advantage in the determined re solution of the House to deal with that enormous amount of public debt, and to show that they were willing to make great sacrifices to obtain such a re duction.—(Hear, hear.) Not that he entertained any idea that public opinion would ever go to the extent of repudiating the payment of that debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad told them that five-sixths of the fundholders of the country received dividends not ex ceeding 50/. a year, and he might have stated a fact still more striking. The British Association, in its meeting in Edinburgh, read a statistical paper, in which the fund'nolders were divided into twelve classes, ac cording to the amounts they received. It appeared that there had been, between the years 1831 and 1848, a con , siderable and large diminution in the number of fund holders in every one of these classes except one; and what was that? The class of persons receiving less than 51. A proof, not so much that the working classes were making accumulations of money, as that they re garded the public debt as a safe investment for their savings.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt the great point in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the re duction of taxation that he proposed. He would say nothing of the equalization of the duty on foreign and colonial coffee, and the reduction of the duty on foreign timber, because he apprehended that nobody would raise an objection to them, and probably ,the Right Hon. Gentleman could not have laid his finger on two ar ticles more deserving of the consideration of the House; but the loss in these was small compared with what he proposed to abandon with respect to the window-tax, and it was with regard to that part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's policy he was com pelled to give a qualified and hesitating a ssent. He should have thought that the Right Ron. Gentleman LON DON, EVENING, APRIL 8, I vernment to repeal the duties on corn, sugar, and timber. The Hen. Member was dissatisfiTal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer assigning as a reason far not reducing the c.luty on tea that it was not a protective duty; but to his (Mr. Wilson's) mind that was a good objection. The whole of a duty which was not protective went into the Exchequer, whereas of a duty which was protective only a portion reached the public Treasury, the rest going into the pockets of persons Rho ought not to have it. It appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Leominster was justified in assuming that the object of the amend ment was the reversal of the policy which the House and the Government had pursued for the last ten years. The House was called upon to decide whether the tax on pro perty and income should be continued. or whether, in case of need, the system of import duties should be re verted to. It was said the other night that the credit of the country would be jeopardized by relying too much on direct taxation. It should, however, be borne in mind that in this country the direct taxation formed only 20 percent. of the gross taxation, while in France it was 35 per cent., in Belgium 37 per cent., in Holland 35 per cent., and in Prussia 37 per cent. Betweea 1823, when Mr. Huskisson began to reduce taxes upon raw materials with the view of increasing the means of employment to the industrial classes, to:1839, upwards of 11,000,0001 of taxes were repealed, and yet at the latter period the revenue was nearly equal to what it was at the former. He would next refer to the period between 1830 and 1841. In that period the total amount of taxes reduced was 8,437,7931. The result was that at the end of that period there was a deficiency of revenue to the extent of 2,008,000/, notwithstanding the imposition of 5 per cent. on Customs' duties in 1840 ; and, although this still showed an apparent gain to the country of 6,437,0001., yet he believed it would be found that the advantage was more apparent than real. He believed it would be found that the system pursued from 1830 to 1841 did not prove at all beneficial to the trade and finances of the country, that during that period our ex ports remained almost stationary, or little more than the natural increase of the population. In 1830 the official value of our imports was 46,200,000/., while in 1842 it was 64,300,000/, showing an increase of 18,100,0001; being at the rate of 39 per cent. on the 12 years, or 34 per cent. per annum, or double the increase of population. In 1830 the real value of our exports was 38,250,0001; in 1842 it was 47,000,0001.—increase 8,750,0301.; being at the rate of 23 per cent. on the 12 years, or 2 per cent. per annum, or little more than the natural increase of the population. This result was by no means gratifying or satisfactory. But if the com mercial result of the policy which we pursued from 1830 to 1842 was not satisfactory the financial result was still less so, for he found that during that period not only had the public debt increased to the extent of 7,778,000/., and the balances in the Exchequer been reduced from 5,993,0001, in 1830 to 3,653,0001. in 1841, being a de crease of 2,340,0001., but he found that from 1837 to 1842 there was an annual deficiency csf revenue amount ing in the whole period to no less than 8,709,121/., the deficiency in the year 1842.43 alone being estimated at 2,500,0001. He begged the attention of the House to the fact, that of the 8,437,793/. of taxes remitted from 1830 to 1841 only 750,673/. were reductions of customs' duties. He would next call the atturation of the House to the remarkable contrast which the policy pursued from 1842 to 1850 presented to that which was pursued in the period to which he had just referred. From 1842 to 1850 an entirely new system prevailed, the object of which was to relieve trade from impediments, to repeal entirely the duties upon raw materials, to remove duties which were merely protective, and tie reduce the duties which were,found to be excessive upon articles of genera consumption. The reduction of taxation effected in that period amounted to 10,251,2944—e0n sisting of Customs, 8,218,95 8 / 4 Excise, 1,434,2801.; stet rips, 598,056/. In 1841—and he took that year instead of 1842, because the latter was a year of depression—in 1841 the Cus toms' receipts were 21,898,0001. ; i n 1850 they were 20,442,0001., showing a loss of 1,456,0001; while the re dactions of Customs' duties effected in that period amounted to 8,218.958/. The Excise receipts. in 1841, amounted to 13,678,0001; in 1850 they amounted to 14,316,0004 showing a gain of 638,0001., notwithstand ing the reduction of Excise duties amounted to 1,434,280/ —(Hear. hear.) In 1841 the whole revenue amounted to 48,084,000/., and in 1850 to 52,81Q,000/.; showing a gain of 4,726,000/. during nine years. If from this in crease he deducted the income-tax receipts—amounting to 5,500,000/.—a net loss would be exhibited of only 774,0001., while the reduction of vexes amounted. as he had shown, to 10,251,2941.—(11(ear, hear.) The financial results of the policy were not less striking. Not only had the national debt been reduced in that period to the extent of 4,221,0001, but the balances in the Exchequer had increased no lesn than 7,858,000/ e and whereas in 1842 there were deficiency bills due to the Bank to the extent of 6,606,0004, iu 1850 there was a surplus in the Bank, after paymerat of all claims, amounting to 1,012,0001. If this was not a satisfactory result he could not say what was.—(Bear, hear.) But, if the financial results were satisfactory, he thought the House would admit that the commenlial results were equally striking. In 1842 the official value of our im ports was 64,309,000/4 in 1849 it was 105,800,0001., being an increase of 41,500,0001.; in other words, of 64 per cent. in the whole seven years, or 9 per cent. per an num, or at six times the rate of the population.— (Hear, hear.) In 1842 the real value of our 'exports amounted to 47,000,0001.; in 1850 it amounted to 70,000,0001., being an increase of 23,000,0001.; that. was to say, of 50 per cent, in the whole eight years, or 61 per cent. per annum, or at four times the rate of the population.— (Hear, hear.) Again, in 1842 the shipping cleared inwards and outwards amounted to 7,347,000 tons, and in 1850 to 12,020,000 tons, being an increase of 4,673,000 tons, or 63 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) He would next present to the House the, general contrast between the two periods to which he had just re ferred—viz., from 1830 to 1842, and from 1842 to 1850. In the first period the taxes surrendered amounted to 8,437,0001.; in the second ,period to 10,251,0001.; in the first period the revenue recovered 6,437,000/4 in the second period 9,477,000/. In the first period the na tional debt increased 7,778,000/4 in the second it de creased 4,221,0001., notwithstanding the 10,000,000/. added in consequence of the Irish famine. At the close of the first period the balances in the Exchequer had decreased 2,340,000/4 at the close of the second they had increased 7,855,0001. At the close of the first period the deficiency bills amounted to 6,606,0001.; at the close of fee second the surplus in the Bank amounted to 1,012,0001. At tke close of the first period the defi ciency of income over expenditure was 2,500,000 Z; at the close of the second there was a surplus to the same extent. During the first period the imports increased 18,100,000/. ; during the second they increased 41,500,0001.; being at the rate of 39 per cent. during the first period, and 64 per cent. during the second; or 31 per cent. during the first period, and 9 per cent. during the second; or double the rate of population in the first period, and six times in the second. During the first period the exports increased 8,750,0001., during the second 23,000,0001 ; the increase in the first period being 23 per cent., and in the second 50 per cent., or at the rate of 2 per cent. on the first period, and 6-1 per cent. ou the second, or little more than the population rate in the first period, and four times in the second. — (Hear, hear.) In the first period the shipping cleared inwards and out wards amounted to 7,347,000 tons, in the second to 12,020,000 tons, being an increase of 63 per cent. One of the great means relied on by the Right Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present motion was the repeal of the duties on raw materials. Well, by reference to papers before the House it would be found that the whole amount of cotton imported in 1842 was 4,200,000 cwt.; in 1850, 5,934,000; wool, in 1842, 45,000,000 cwt.; in 1850, 74,000,000 cwt.; raw silk in 1842, 3,365,000 lb.; in ISSO, 4,942,000 lb.; hemp, in 1842, 585,000 cwt.; in 1850, 1,048,000 cwt.; flax, in 1842, 1,130,000 cwt.; in 1850, 1,821,000 cwt. The cotton had increased 41 per cent., and the population 12 per cent.; the wool 64 per cent.; silk, 46 per cent; hemp, 80 per cent.; flax, 61 per cent. The amount of duties re duced on raw material was 2,500,0001.—(11ear, hear.) In the same period the consumption of tobacco had increased 25 per cent. ; wine, 38 per cent. ; tea, 38 per cent. ; spirits, 53 per cent.; and sugar, 60 per cent. Ile also begged the attention of the House to the tranquil state of the country within the last few years, compared with the outbreaks which occurred at Monmouth, Sheffield, and other places just prior to 1842. It could not be said that there had been pecu liar causes connected with the political and social con dition of the country during the last ten years to account for the success of the free-trade policy to which ho had referred, for during that period we had bad a commer cial panic such as had never been known, perhaps, in this country; we hadifid a famine in Ireland unparal leled in the present century—we had had revolutions all over Europe—all of which causes had interfered mate rially with the progress of the commerce and trade of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Bucks bad taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the frequent allusions he was in the habit of making to the improved condition of the people. He (Mr. Wilson) begged to say that if the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks should ever, after having occupied the Minis terial benches for five years, be enabled to refer in the same way to the result of the policy in which he had been engaged—if he could refer to the improved condition of the people, to the diminution of pauperism, to the de crease of poor-rates, and, above all, to the diminution of the number of ablebodied poor, he would have just cause to refer with satisfaction to the policy in'which he had embarked.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the income-tax, he (Mr. Wilson) could not look upon h it u as a t tax which was peculiar to a tim e of war. He t og thought it was the duty of the House to consider what taxw sure would best answer the purposes they required; and h t e h v e en pe of people would income-tax,wotsldsft4 to secure e the temporary the porartyr. e su f as inconvenience,ece destructive luph war. —(Hear, than to support a wasteful and h e ar.) The lion. Member for mh oathaßieura x u ke c r k eu inl thatg s any reduction vael m a shire and his friends neve r seemed to reduction of taxation w as of consequence . Wi to ls t j h n e ) for the agricultural benefit i interest t u e f r est that unless interest.i was Now believed that, taken as a body, no portion of the com munity had benefited more by the reductions of the last ten years than the agricultural community.—(Cries of "Oh!" from the Opposition benches.) lie maintained that the agricultural community had benefited as much as any other class by the removal of the duties on sugar, tobacco, and other articles, and that they would receive as much benefit as any.other class b tho substitution of a house-tax for a window-tax. Is ought also to be borne in mind that every recurring census showed that the :Agriculturists were becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the population. In 1811 the agricultural population was 34 per cent, of the whole; in 1821 it was 27 per cent.; in 1831, it was 24 per cent.; and in 1841, it was so far from increas ing, that it was 35,000 less than there had been employed in agriculture in 1831.—(Cries of " Oh! oh 1") lion. Gentlemen might say "Oh 1" but ho spoke from the public returns which they would find in the library.—(Laughter.) If Hon. Gentlemen were pre pared to discredit the returns of the census—(Hear, hear)—then he did not know whtre they could get a test 1851. by which they might argue the question. He was quite surd there was one Honourable Gentleman opposite, who, from his own experience of the agricultural districts of the west of England could testify that the number of those employed in agriculture had not increased with the natural increase of the population. When they found that the population, instead of tilling the soi', were obliged to descend into the bowels of the earth as miners, and when they depended upon the loom and upon com merce for employment, then, he said, it was their duty to place no impediment on the natural extension and pro gress of their manufacturing industry. If they were now to place au import duty upon articles of consumption— if they repealed the income-tax and relied upon import duties—if they were prepared to place a ss. duty on wheat, then he asked them to consider on what an unsa tisfactory basis they would place their financial system. Let them consider what it would cost the country. To gain a revenue of 2,500,0001. they would place a cost upon the consumers which would amount to 10,000,0001. a year; and then he asked them what they would do for a revenue in case of a famine, and when they would be compelled to repeal the whole of their import duties? He could hardly believe that Honourable Gentlemen were really sincere in their intended reversal of a policy which had had so beneficial an effect upon the working classes, which had secured to them constant employment, and had supplied them with cheap food and good wages. —(Hear, and cheers.) Mr. BOOKER said that, representing as he did a deeply suffering agricultural population, ha made no apology for intruding himself upon the debate—(Hear)—but in doing so he would endeavour to bring back the debate to its legiti mate object.—(Hear.) He would not attempt to follow the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down through the long labyrinth of statistics with which he had sought to mystify the House, but he should, on the contrary, endeavour to con fine himself to that subject which was strictly before them —the Right Hon. Gentleman's amendment.—(Hear.) In doing so he would endeavour to treat the question strictly as a domestic question, and to omit all reference to its bearings upon their foreign policy. He hoped he might impress the House with the deep responsibility it would incur if it enabled the Government to pursue a policy which was wholly suicidal—which was rife with difficulty and danger now, and which, if persisted in, must end in the utter ruin of every interest in the state.—(Cheers.) Re presenting as he did an agricultural community, he pro tested against the imposition of a t ax w hi c h was per fectly iniquitous—(Cheers)—and which pressed with in equality upon interests that were struggling and suffering. (Cheers.) `Were they, he asked, to tell a suffering com munity that there was justice—that there was policy in compelling them to pay a tax upon losses, instead of upon profits?—(Cheers.) And then, when they threw down the gauntlet to them—when they endeavoured to array class against class—when they sought to excite into hostility against each other city against village, and county against town, he asked them, why did they not look to their own returns? Why did they conceal the truth—he did not say intentionally—or why did they throw dust in the eyes, he did net say of Members, but of those who sent them there —of their constituents—of those by whom this question would finally be decided?—(Hear, near.) Now, he must tell the inhabitants of large towns that they had as much cause to complain of the inequality of this impost as the agriculturists.—(Hear, hear.) The only return they had on this subject was one sought for by Mr. Mullins. It showed most extraordinary results; and he believed—at least as far as he had heard of the debate—that it had not been referred to by any Honourable Gentleman. It ap peared by this return that in Schedule D, which related to trades and professions, there was given an enumeration of classes, and the incomes in each, the duty charged upon the number of persons in each class, and the amount re ceived from each class. This would show what was the benefit intended for the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would prove that the burden of the in come-tax bore with peculiar severity upon the middle classes in cities. The number of persons in Schedule I) was 144,620; of these the number of persons having incomes under 5001. was 124,733, and upon these 124,000 persons was placed the great pressure of the tax, leaving only 20,000 who had incomes over 500/., and showing that their total contribution Nk as 57,0001., whilst there was contributed by those under 5001. no less a sum than 661,000/. He hoped the constituents in the large towns—he hoped the inhabit ants of private streets would understand this—he hoped the country would understand it.—(Cheers.) He hoped the peu ple would not be deluded by clap-traps as to the distress cf the country being occasioned by high rents, when it was notorious that rents had fallen from 20 to 25 per cent.— (Hear, hear.) Did they wish these rents to fall lower? Was that their philosophy ? If it was lie would tell them ' there was a great philosopher once who thought otherwise. 1 The great John Locke, in writing upon the subjects, declared that an infallible sign of national decay was the fall of rents, and that the raising of them was worth a nations care, as in that, and not on the of interest, lies the advantage of the public.—(Hear.) By him the fall of rent was attributed to two causes—an exhaustion of the productive power of the soil, and then to the measure of its produce. Here, then, was a measure of its produce by setting it in unjust compe tition with foreign produce ; and whilst this was going cn labourers were leaving their shores, and the productive power of machinery was increased in a tenfold degree.—(Hear.) He implored of the Noble Lord, who he did believe had the interest and the welfare of VA country at heart, to look to these great facts—that whilst this emigration was going on year after year, an emigration, not of the idle or the disso lute, but of those who might be called the back-bone of England—whilst they were carried away from their native land, and whilst production was increasing— still there was not a productive increase of human labour, but there was an enormous increase of mechanical power—of that power which neither eats, nor drinks, nor wears.—(Hear, hear.) They (the agriculturists) were taunted with being monopo lists, and this was said to them by those whose sole object was monopoly, the monopoly of trade and commerce—whose idol was cheapness, and whose aim and object was to put down their manufacturing rivals in every part of the world. The Hon. Gentleman concluded amid loud cheers by quoting an extract from a speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in 1842. Mr. SLANEY rose amid loud cries of " Divide," which were very frequently repeated during the delivery of his ad dress. He said that he had derived, both by birth and habit, all he possessed from agriculture, and that he would hesitate before he adopted any line of conduct which, in his opinion, would have the effect of injuring that great interest. He admitted that the change recently made in our commer cial policy had been effected too hastily, and that the agricul tural interest ought to have been afforded more time to con form to it; but the question now was, whether they would reverse a policy which he firmly believed had upon the whole worked beneficially for the great masses of the people within this realm? Allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the necessity of havinc , security for the payment of the national revenue ; but he thought that increase - 1 security for that was afforded by the diminished weight of taxation now borne by the people. Since the peace there had been a diminution of 42,000,0001. in the taxation of the country; and this amount had 'not been taken off the shoulders of the opulent, the noble and the rich. Almost every tax taken off had been removed either from the manufacture of raw materials or from those articles which entered largely into to the consump tion of the masses—such, for instance, as salt, wine, tobacco rum, coffee, hemp, candles, fruit, and spirits. And what bad been the consequence of these reductions? Why, that from 1815 down to the present time—a period of 35 years—the property of the middle classes had increased from 53,000,0001. to 94,060,0004 a year. The population had increased during the same period 50 per cent. ; the increase of it in the rural districts had been 32, and in the great towns 96 per cent. Daring the same period the legacy duties had increased from 24,000,0001. to 45,000,000/. ; insurances had increased from 385,000,0001. to 722,000,000/. •, and it was the calculation of an eminent authority, Mr. Porter, that real and personal property had increased in those same 35 years from 1,200,000,000/. to 2,403,000,000/. The taxes, therefore, were now apportioned and extended over an increased amount of property.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that the best way to relieve the land of England, which he admitted was at present in a depressed condition, was to benefit those large classes of the community who were the chief consumers of its produce. This was a far better way to raise landed property than to attempt to do so by the reimposition of re atrictive duties.--(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPOONER rose for the purpose of bringing back the House to the point from which they' had wandered. The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed one way of disposing of the surplus, and the Right Hon. Mem ber for Stamford suggested another. The question then was, which the House would prefer. The Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Excheciner proposed a tax which he Lim self, when out of office, had denounced as full of injustice, inequality, and fraud. It was full of injustice and fraud when opposed by the Noble Lord who then sat on that (the Opposition) side of ' the House. Why was it less so now? Because the Noble Lord had changed' sides.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Right Honourable Gentleman said he had not opposed the tax on those grounds but on merely fiscal grounds; anti he added that lie proposed the continuance now, because the plan he sub mitted was one that would benefit the masses. But the House would see how far that was correct by a single pas sage which he would read from a speech by the Rightent 11 Gentleman in 1845;wh0 said, when answering the arb um which had gone before, "To the general argument aga i nst the income-tax for inequality, injustice. and vexation, , no answer whatever has been given. —(Hear, hear.) the Right Hon. Gentleman then adopted the words of the Noble Lord, and called upon the House for an answer. He (Mr. Spooner) would follow the example, and now call upon the Right Hon. Gentleman to give the answer which he had challenged in 1845. The 'Right 'Hon. Gentleman also, in that year, said, in answer to the allegation, that it was a tax pressing exclusively upon the rich, that it pressed upon the poor because it diminished the means of giving employment. He was anxious to hear a full answer from the Right Hon. Gentleman; and he had endeavoured to bring back the House to the real point before them, in the hope that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government would tell them why a tax which, in 1845, he had stigmatized as vexatious, was the tax which his. Government now proposed to inflict ,upon the country. Mr. J. REYNOLDS said that, having voted for the con tinuance of the income-tax. in 1848, and, intending now to vote for the amendment of Mr. Harries—(Oh, and Hear) — he was anxious to explain the reason why he had come to the latter determination. The financial propoSitions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were numerous and important; but :after listening to Hon. Members on each side of the House, it appeared that the' item to which most importance was attached, was the proposal 'to renew the income-tax for three years. The Right Hon. Gentleman stated that it was not his intention to extend that tax to Ireland at present— The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Not at all. Mr. a. REYNOLDS—To say that he did not intend to do so at present meant only that at some future period the Right Hon. Gentleman, or some one upon whom his mantle might fall, would feel it to be his duty to extend the tax to Ireland ; and taking that view of the question, it occurred to him that it was the duty of the Irish representatives to oppose its renewal now. When Sir R. Peel proposed the income-tax in 1842, he placed the non•extension of it to Ire land upon the groundlthat Eke was certainly unable to bear the pressure, tkudit.hat there was no mac hi ner y exist!ng there to enable hiNto• assply Itt3 but-he,wound up by, say in g that, as an equivalent for the non-extension of 0 tax to Ireland, he should assimilate tbes Reynolds) two countries, and he afterwards did so. lie (Sir. nients under held in his hand an extract' from o ffi cial 4 stamp duties'uof the from it the House the head of " Stamps and Time," would observe that by this as simila an t a i d o n n i e r g lr u e iv la a n t d en h t a f d or b e t e h n forced'to pay a certain annual sum as income-tax. In 1..841, the year beforudtt4breslianwfrvealans d wag, the amount prodticed,by,.the stemß. p. _J . .the seven pre , "the sums raised 463,0001., and that 'was' 'about ceding years. But after the "a tslislootavileartagi were as follows: ......... . . -0531,003 1842 ..................... 1843 . . ............. ..... 587,000 1844 ...... ..... • ... •••• . ...... 583,000 1845 . . ... ,••••• ..... ...... " "'' ..... • • 598,000 1846 . . ....... . ..... . ...................... 613,000 1847 ........ ...................... . ..... 608,000 1848 ......... ...................... 571,00 For 1549 and 1853 there were no returns; but he took 1, that the m oots would be about eq ua l to those of the two preceding years ; and if he were right in that calculation Ireland would, in nine years, have contributed to the revenue, in increased stamp duties, to the extent of 1.000,0001. sterling. That increase in stamp duties had fallen alm ;et entirely 0 a the poor of Ireland. He might be told that Scottand had been similarly treated, but a reference to figures would prove the reverse. He might be told that it was not income-tax, but he maintained it was income-tax. Ireland in four years, in consequence of the destruc tion of her crops, had lost 100,000,0001. sterling, and this, too, in a country put under the high pressure of poor rates—a country from which 2,000,000/. a-year for the last two years had been drawn by the aid of poor rates. And this, too, with those human slaughter houses, the Kilrush and Ennistymon Unions, where seventy died weekly, and 11 *d. was the average charge per head for the support of the poor, and *:1. a week for clothing. They in this county would not attempt to feed, or rather starve poor men in England for 11 L/ a d. per week, nor would they for 24d. per week attempt to clothe a dog —(Loud laughter) - that is, if dogs were clothed in Eng land. He was told this tax concerned the poor—he s , nauld be glad to know how the poor were to be benefited by the removal or the continuance of the tax. He objected to the tax, on account of its inequality. The Honour able Member then quoted two passages from a former speech of Lord John Russell one condemnatory of the inequality of the tax, and another advocating a tax on the succession to real property. He was for the as latter proposition. He was for saddling real property as heavily personal property was now taxed. He had prin cipally risen to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan. cellor of the Exchequer of his sins of omission. He referred to the paper duty. He did not object to the repeal of the window-tax ; but if the tax were repealed, would it set even one Englishman or one Irishman to work ? But take off the . tax on paper, and you would set at work double the number of persons now employed. He also wished to see the soap duty repealed. But he could find that nothing was done by the Budget to set the people to work. As an Irish Mem ber, he complained that the Budget did nothing for his was not red uce d ; such, f or i ns t ance , as — ( o h-) He compl a ined that the claty on ca°rtuilaclterYs —oflnreeclaetty the duty on tea.— (Hear, hear.) He might be asked what did Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House propose ? He was not aware of any proposition that was to be made by that party. They objected to the income-tax—he did not.— (Laughter.) He was favourable to the continuation of the income-tax on principle—(Loud laughter) —.b ut he was Op. posel to its inequality and its unjust operation on the pro fessional man and trader. Having satisfactorily given his reasons for voting for the amendment of the Right Hon. Member for Stamford—(Laughter) —he was addressing Irish Members, and he would ask them if there was anything in the Budget that ought to engage their support? H e could find nothing of the sort, and therefore he was justified in voting with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford. Lord C. HAMILTON thought the House had been very much engaged in matters extraneous to the real question.— (Hear, hear.) The subject had nothing to do, as was pre tended, with the retrograde movement of free trade. He wished to asked the well-drilled benches opposite whether they meant by their vote to-night to sanction the perma nence of the tax, and whether they did not believe that if they voted it to-night the. Chancellor of the Exchequer would three years hence call upon them to vote it again?.e (Hear, hear.) That was the real question they had to de termine in considering whether they would rc-impcae a tax which had been more eloquently denounced by those who now proposed it than by any other people in the House...-. (Hear.) If they were going to do a thing at all, let them do it openly, fairly, and professedly, but don't let the Govern ment impose, under the guise of a temporary tax, what they in their hearts felt must be permanent. He rejoiced that the window-tax was condemned. If the majority should deter mine the division in favour of the Government, then let the Government come forward and say that what was to be per manent should be equitable.—(Hear, hear.) The injustice of the tax might be passed over when it was levied for a temporary emergency, but now, when the House were asked tl vote it for the fourth time, it was a mockery and a trifling with the country to go on holding out the pretext that the tax was a temporary one. - (Hear.) He called upon Hon. Gentlemen opposite not to allow the income-tax to be riveted upon the country unless they were prepared to make it just to all classes.—(Cheers.) Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who rose amid a loud cry of " Oh 1 oh !") said the real question he had to consider was whether he should vote fer the re-imposition of this tax for three years with all its objections. Now, he did not feel himself Justi fied in voting for the income tax with all its inequalities.... (Cheers.) He was the representative of a manufacturing constituency, who felt most grievously the burden of that tax, and who declared that it ought not to be continued in its present state. Ile was friendly to a tax upon real pro. perty, but he was not friendly to the arbitrary, oppressive, and inquisitorial proceedings which that tax necessitated. As a Radical and supporter of reform, he would not con sent to a-in the Government with this tax for a period of three years, more especially as he believed that by judicious retrenchments it might readily be dispensed with. Sir It. INGLIS said, the grestar part of the discussion of that evening had been upon the merits of Budgets, No. 1 and , ° and not upon the real issue as beta een the p ro p ositions - of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Stamford. He confessed that his objections were as strong against one plan as the other, because if it were inquisitorial, unequal, and unjust, to levy one sum, it was equally so to levy a smaller sum. The point, therefore, to be considered was whether the public credit of the country did or did not require the amount of income. tax' s proposed to be raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those who knew him knew that he objected to the income-tax on account of the way in which it pressed upon particular interests, and they also knew how desirous he had been that the first charge should commence at 15f 1. as a unit. He had no alternative now, however, but to take the tax as he found it proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, or to take the mitigated form proposed by his Right Hon. Friend, and, believing that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would be enabled, if he carried his proposition, to re• lieve an immense amount of taxation, he thought that, under all the circumstances, it was the most preferable of the two. He had no great difficulty in making up his mind upon this question, but he felt compelled reluctantly to give his vote to the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.— (Hear.) The House divided, when there appeared— For the original resolution ... ... 278 For Mr. lierries's amendment ... 230 Majority ... ... ... —4B Mr. DISRAELI said he had given notice of an amend ment upon the question now before the House, and he wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite whether it would not be more convenient to him to take the debate and division on his amendment at a future stage of the proceedings rather than at present, probably on Friday , next, assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pro posed on that day to go into Committee on the window-tax; he thought it might be more agreeable to the Right Hon. Gentleman to take his (Mr. Disraeli's) amendment on that day than go on with it now. Lord J. RUSSELL said the course proposed would be convenient. Ile understood the Hon. Gentleman to agree that the report on the resolution then before House should be received, provided his Right Hon. Friend assented to the debate and division on the Hon. Gentleman's motion being taken on Friday, which would be a convenient course. Mr. LISRAELI said, he did this On the distinct under standing that the Government would bring forward their re solution on Friday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER - stated that the course which be intended to take was this : —He should propose that the resolution be reported now, so as to enable him to bring in a Bill for carrying out the proposition which the House had just affirmed. At future stages of the pro ceedings upon this subject there would doubtless be several discussions, and on Friday the Hon. Member for Bucking hamshire would have an opportunity of submitting hie amendment to the House, as he (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer) proposed that on that day the House should sit in Committee on the house and window-tax. On Friday could, the Hon. Gentleman would have a full and fair opportunity o f moving his amendment on the ques tion that the Speaker do f if __ leave the chair, and then the Hon. Gentleman wished, move the adoption of his propositi on instead of the l hoese and window-tax. ood , he was to Mr. DISRAELI repeated that he u n derst nex t • and now, proceed with his amendment on Friday state the precise with the permission of the House, be would f s ._ h were as ollow . terms of that proposition, whic h were b the remission or ad ,, The, in any relief to be grra dshould in the first instance justment of taxation, due rega n of the owners and • occupiers be paid to the distressed conduits of land in the United Kingdom" Right 11. e Mr. GOULBURN--Did the. on. Gentleman in his proposition in aCommittee of Wave and tend to move Means, or did he mean to propose a Committee of the whole f the to consider a repeal 0 window -tax? House CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that what was called a window-tax was a hou.e-tax levied on inhabited houses, according to the number of windows or lights that they contained. The resolution which he intended to propose to the House was, that the tax, instead of being levied according to the number of lights, should be levied ac cordiNg to the annual value cf the house. Colonel SIBTIIORI' state I to the House that it was not his intention to abandon his motion, of which he had given notice, of the exemption of tenant-farmers and officers of the army and navy from the income-tax, but to persist in it, although the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire bad suhicquently introduced a motion of almost similar character. Mr. HER MES asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to push forward the Bill to continue the income and property-tax so as to have it in Committee before Easter ? It was in the Committee on the Bill that his Hon. and Gallant Friend would have the best opportunity of proposing his motion. Mr. GLADSTONE suggested to the Chancellor o f t n pin which Exchequer to put on the votes the terms of the motlon. which he proposed to make on Friday respecting the dow-tax . thought The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER right in that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ilerries ) make his pro suggesting to the lion. and Gallant Colonel to T,ill. , He was position on some stage of the Property - x ' ta- COMe - tax could afcaid that the Bill for the renewal of the in only t wo not be committed before Easter, as there leer° two days before Easter of which the Governme nt had the com man d The house and window for a purpose of this description. dhe trusted th t _ a th e de tax would be taken on Friday, Mme day. bate would be concluded on s h e sanr 3% He should be • •t o communicate ,fur the convenience prepared before Frida y . t „ras of the resolution that he of the House, the precise intended to move. e House having Mr. HUME said that th time now resolved to renew the income-tax for i ll i to be limited, he should, in Committee on the Bill, propose that the limitation should be for ono year, .with a View of having a Committee appointed to inquire whetner it was not possible to remove ds of some of the groan complaint now felt with regard to it. E un d erstood Mr. COBD - N .' the Hon. Member for Mont rose was not opposed to direct taxation, but only wished the inconie sssee to be so The II framed that it might be made a perma nent tax- on. Member, however, must be well aware that a large portion of the Members of that House were op• posed to the income-tax as a tax, and they would vote with the lion. Member for limiting it to one year from very dif ferent motives from those which actuated him. Now, he took it for grant e d th a t hi s Hon. Friend would like to test the House as to the propriety of levying the tax in a nig: equitable manner, so as to give more satisfaction to the his country ; and, therefore, he (Mr. Cobden) suggested th at of the ll,n. Friend, before taking a vote as to tue limitatio n of of tax to one year, should give the House an opportunit y the expressing its opinion as to the propriety of assessing InZtt more equitable manner. The report of the original resolution was then agreed to, and leave given to bring in a Bill founded thereon. read a third time, The Designs Act Extension Big 'fie clauses were added, and the Bill passed' t d) illw en t through • e (Ireland) t , The Apprentices to Sea Serv e Committee. MBE The House then went into Comm itte eß (IRELAND.) EXCHEQUER CHAMBER on the Exchequer resolution A beinganded to the h Chamber (Ireland), an e°llGeneral for Ireland, Chairman by the ttorYe Mr. KEOGII inqu ired what was the object of the re . solution ? lied that it was a resolution with re - Mr. HATCIIELL 9 spect to the cm-Ivenstion the Exchequer hember in Ireland, for the abolition of their offices under the c compens ation to be given to certain officers of Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill. TUESDAY would have been satisfied with levying the duty not on the number of the windows, but on the letting value of the house. But he was not contented with substituting that new mode of levying the duty proposed to accom pany the substitution by a loss, first to the extent of three-fourths of a million, and then to the extent of 1,150,000/. It was obvious that that great reduction of taxation would not benefir, at all events, the working classes.—(Hear, hear.) The owners and occupiers of the better class of houses, [mounting to 500,000 out of 3,500,000, would be benefited, and these alone. The Right Hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Mill's " Elements of Political Economy" iu support of his proposition; but what did Mr. Mill say—that the house-tax was one of the first and most equitable taxes that could be imposed, for this reason, that it was paid by persons in proportion to their power of expenditure. It was quite clear that a man's power of expenditure was a better test of his ability than his income. Instances might be daily seen of a nominal income the whole amount not being in the power of the party to dispose of. They had heard enough of the injustice and impolicy of the incomo•tax; and no one could deny the difference between a life and a permanent income. But there WAS a still broader distinction between these and the more precarious contingencies of fortune, health, reputation, and employment. Men in that position were bcuud by considerations of prudence, duty, and foresight, not merely to lay by a portion of their income fur the pur pose of providing for those who were to come after them, to start them in life with a prospect of success, but they were also bound to lay by something for that stage of their own lives when years declined and health decayed. But what was the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? To make these parties pay a most unfair and unequal proportion. He could not give even a qua lified assent to that. At the same time he looked at the income-tax as a great lever for elevating the social and moral condition of the working classes, He looked forward to a long career of on ward progress in that path of social improve ment on which they had entered; and ho should be most loth and reluctant to abandon that great instru ment by which so much good had been effected, and which, if they were to effect what remained to be done, they must maintain. He allowed for the great pressure on the Government; but he could not say that he thought they had made the best use of their power in the re-im position of the income-tax. The task was not so diffi cult, and they had only to follow out and apply on a larger and broader manner the great principles of the system of commercial and financial legislation which had been commenced in 1842, and they would find now, as then, that it would open up new channels for the in dustry and labour of the country, extend and widen the area of our foreign markets, and bring within the reach of the poor and humble an increased amount of the comforts and conveniences of life, diffuse peace and con tentment over the country, range the working classes on the side of peace and good government, and by so doing give increased strength and stability to the institutions of the country, which he valued not for themselves, but for the sake of the advantages and blessings they en joyed under them.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. T. BARING having complimented the preceding speaker on his able speech, proceeded to say that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointedly alluded to him, he felt it necessary to trouble the House with a few words. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in stating that his real surplus would be only 612,0001., added that he was ashamed to call it a surplus, but that it was dimi nished by the concessions he had made to the owners and occupiers of land. Since that he had:reformed his Bud get, sweeping away those concessions, and his surplus, instead of being increased, was farther (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Baring) believed that Govern ment had diminished their surplus and altered their Bud get in compliance with pressure from without; and so be lieving, he had called it the act of a weak Government. He should have passed the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech without notice, but when his supporters praised his speech as a substitute for a Budget, and compared it with Lord Stanley's, he then had remarked that the ten dency of the speech was not to sustain public credit, but to buy popularity by the removal of taxation. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the declaration of Sir Robert Peel that he did not wish to maintain a large surplus because he was convinced that the House of Commons would make any deficiency good and maintain public credit. True, but ho (Mr. Baring) had confidence not only in the Right Honourable Baronet's intentions, but his power.—(Bear, hear.) Now he had the fullest confidence in the intentions of the Noble Lord opposite; but =certainly he had not the same confidence in his power.—(Hear, hear.) He should not trouble the House as to the nature of the vote he was about to give, further than that he was one of the old-fashioned people who believed that it was important to have a large surplus. He was sorry to have heard gentlemen express a dif ferent opinion, believing that a surplus was necessary to maintain our position abroad and our institutions at home. Therefore he confessed that he did not agree with his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Stamford in re ducing so much of the income-tax.—(A laugh.) He had not been aware of his Right Hon. Friend's proposal; he had only seen his resolution, and found that ho was contented with 350,0001. surplus. One Hon. Gentleman wished to take off the window-tax, and the other would reduce the income-tax. He preferred the latter, as he believed that it would benefit the masses more then the former. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposed the in come-tax at first because it was proposed by Sir Robert Peel merely to make up a deficiency. He (Mr. T. Baring) could not reconeile that with what he now said about the importance of having a surplus fund. The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted the injustice in volved in the levying of the income-tax, but defended the tax on the ground that its operation was unjust to all. No one could complain. because every one was in jured. Did any Chancellor of the Exchequer ever before defend a tax on such a ground as that?—(Hear, hear.) Not only was the tax unjust, but it was the cause of much fraud, that for that reason alone it ought to be abolished. As one of the commercial class he could not look at the return under Schedule D without being con vinced that great fraud was practised.—(Hear, hear.) Since 1846 there had been a diminution in the tax to the amount of 6,000,0001.; and since 1843, the year in which it was first imposed, of 8,000,0001. They were in this dilemma, either the commercial prosperity so much boasted of had failed to increase profits, or the greatest frauds had been practised; and one of the strongest ob jections to this tax was, that the honest man paid it, while the dishonest escaped.—(Hear, hear.) He would not trouble the House with many observations. He wished distinctly to state his conviction that without a surplus the country could not be safe.—(Hear.) He did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that by leaving money in the hands of the people they obtained as good security for the public creditor as they could in any other manner. The public creditor wished to see not only that the country was able, but that it was willing, to fulfil its engagements; and it was no satisfaction to him to tell him that the debtor kept the money in his pocket and was able to pay. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had very ably stated his views with regard to what had occurred since 1842. In a great deal that the llon. Gentleman said he (Mr. Baring) entirely concurred, more especially with regard to the advantages of dividing the taxation between direct and indirect, if the direct taxation could be made just. An income-tax was a tax for an emergency. There was no more dangerous emergency than that arising out of a deficiency, and Sir Robert Peel proposed the tax of 1842 on that ground. Ho must here observe that it was not fair to compare one year with another without taking everything into consideration ; neither was it right to re gard increased exports as a proof of prosperity, though ho admitted that to a certain extent it was. He could have wished that the Government had proposed to main tain the whole of the surplus, to continuo the income-tax for ono year, affording time for considering how it might bo modified so as to make it just, and then, if there were a great surplus next year, to leave that surplus to be ap plied either in reduction of general taxation, or to the re moval of the income-tax. Although from the Exhibition, and other temporary causes, there might be for a time great prosperity, yet it should not be forgotten that the difference between the revenue of 1848 and that of 1847 was a fall im the latter period of 2,000,0001. in the ordi nary revenue of the country; and he (Mr. T. Baring) would not blink the question, that they ought not to re duce taxation unless they were quite convinced that what was remitted would not be required.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had begged his friends not to propose the redaction of small taxes, but rather to deal with taxes affectine . articles of larger consumption. Did he suppose that if he repealed the window-tax one year, and some other tax the next, he would over be able to propose the reduction of the duty on tea? He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that it would be worth while to retain the income-tax, in order to reduce the duty on tea to the extent of Is.; but he did not see how that object could be-promoted by taking off the window-tax. Had Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so ostentatiously called_themselves the friends of the people, ever proposed a reduction of the duty on tea— sn article which entered so largely into the consumption of the people, and upon which there was levied a duty of 300 per cent.?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told the House the other night, why he did not propose to reduce that duty; it was because it was not a protective duty. It entered, however, into the consumption of everybody. There was not a ploughboy who trod the heavy clay—(Laughter)—and there was not a shepherd who climbed the barren hills—(Renewed laughter)—there was not a soldier who had returned from a foreign station but what consumed tea.—(Continued laughter.) And if he wished to indulge in the language of sympathy for the poor for a special political purpose, he could tell the reason why" no reduction of the tea duty was proposed—it was because it would be a benefit to all classes and an injury to none.—(Hear, hear.) It would depreciate no British property, it would ruin no British colony, it would sacrifice no British capital, it would reduce the wages of no British labourer.—(Cheers.) That was " the reason why" there was to be no reduc tion of the duty on tea; but, instead of that, the window tax was to be repealed.—(Hear, hear.) Ho must declare that he could not suppose the Right Hon. Gentleman's financial policy. Ho saw in it nothing large or compre hensive; he saw in it no justice to these whom the Right Hon. Gentleman admitted to be suffering; ho saw in it a want of regard for the public creditor; and, believing as he did, that it had a partial character, a popular pur pose, and would not tend to benefit the country at large, he should vote for the amendment cf the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, with the condition that a reduction of the income-tax was the best step that could be taken.—(Cheers) Mr. 'WILSON thought that, the reasons assigned by the Hon. Member for objecting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan ought to have induced him to dissent even more strongly from the amendment. The Hon. Gentleman bad somewhat misrepresented what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when the income-tax was originally proposed by Sir R. Peel. What the Right Hon. Gentleman really said was ; that although he disliked an income-tea, he would not object to its impo sition if it were used as the means of enabling the Go- the/ iong 9 of Th g 1161‘ ton! ight ( der• , he larti