The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-11 00:00:00

or dere , g for tw• - 0e Irel a nd. ie be rod t o s u s te det a il as to the quantity of cotton consumed-,........„. in - st l ee , and the benefit e hich the poor man would derive Gentte .I.r e reduction of the duty, but did not the Hon. °th er e ?: an see that if he pursued that course with any tir e d r 'c he would fi n d t h at t h e amoun t o f b ene fit de tern tre te , its reduction by e a c h i n dividual of the eir t°llt4 tY would b e b ut sma ll. L e t hi m p ursue hi s le a e e aleulatio ns with regard to the 2s. a p e ound which b e P o sed to tak e off toleteco, and calculate what wuld the 'le saving which would accrue to the poor man upon eThep t , with toba cco which h e was com p e ll e d t o consume . rte regard to th e hi g her ord e rs, the Hon Gen deefiell e mnplitined that they would derive from these re %el no Su ffi cient compensation for the income-tax Ge m t uey were compelled to pay. But did the Hon. ine efi el aan think that the reduction of the duty on to- Lek I :onia give them that compensation ? It was evi the h etet they cou ld not b y any reductions make up to forced orders for the contribution which they were ther e e ta Pay to the itcome-tax.—(Hear, hear.) But See oee was one thing certain, that the income-tax did for ti,7 l ;.!te directly upon the lower classes ; and it was Ne " t 1 ° n• Gentleman to explain whether the lower tr ap :: did not derive benefit from a tax which was so ib e t d as to rake 5,000,000 annually from the property le, it , better class of society.—(Hear, hear.) Now, if tile e i ght lien. Friend had come down to Parliament, tia4 re Pnsed the reduction of those two duties which Itil• Gentleman seemed so highly to favour -4441 mentioned had mentioned five or six taxe..l-1e 15 (14" t ioned tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, 'and spirits ; 1 / 44 at he had meant to say was, that if they had re kers a i rl Y of these, th e y w o u ld have taken a better Ti e t han that which they had taken. St t eT I L A NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had un -4 r - t u° Hon. Gentleman to insist part i cu l ar l y on 4 tileduction of the duty on tobacco and spirits. Now, tee :,1 1 .01e that if hi s Ri g h t H on. F r i en d h a d propose d &ilafment to d evo t e th e sur pl us o f 3,000,0001. to th e 4 ,n1„, e °11 of the duty on tobacco and spirits, the Hon. Nee, f:an would himself have been the first to have 'ere k r touter against such a proposition. He would tiq 'd them that these were not the articles in which 4r e en tlet imi of duty ought to have been made. He would 5 tileZplailltd that they were pandering to the vices ,o ver ible, instead of ministering to their comforts, nee.: on. Gentleman would, in such a case, have e4el - 7son for his complaints than lie had at present. It itlee tllit ted that in selecting the different articles on 44 to eduction of duty was to be made they were bald :: tee from which the greatest amount of benefit S en , e obtained, li e wou ld not d eny t h e correctness ner' liciple laid down by the lion. Gentleman that Palci y ; r e bound to consid, r what reduction it was that 7st tenduce the greatest amount of benefit to the poor. ~ it in e re were other modes of benefiting the poor quite "ki i , ‘ „' t t'al as withdrawing from them the burden of t tel e w",• The Hon. Gentleman had spoken disparagingly ; b ettttikterations in . the tariff, hut if the effect of those to te ° , l ', s lieeld be to extend the field of employment "ki i .3.'„' forth new exertions—to induce the employ istlt,",resh e ita c l i — n ' e n s d — to e give increased employment letitieuldustrio a u P h thought they were con el4iiege ° l l the lower sa c s l ' asses relief and assistance, inferior Zolitt,;4lg„ cane to that which they would derive from the f at, 4 . - ‘ . °F direct taxation on articles of consumption.. Eh; " bald said before, the imposition of an income 'lto ; L in . ° ttnte—did absolutely, in fact—prove a re- I ttli `" lower classes of the community. With respect ke lirlluetion of the duty on glass, he would remind ! l td n• Gentleman that, since the announcement of the N .. " °I the duty had been made, several persons had t 4 tak en Letts. _ a steps for the purpose of investing capital in :tlltiettrt.. npfacture. 7 1 on a former occasion, he i7tee es "`; of the repeal of the il cotton duty and its ad the 'or had not confined himself to the advantages illt b ,P,°, o ter classes by the diminution of the cost of L t - t ;eles of dress. If that repeal of the cotton duty L,' l th l-tiq the cot r t e ZmanufaCtures, it would largely add t 7l . tilt said of employment of the working classes ; 4e b e "t 1 that the I I not confer a more substan -4,44,4y cou i . . it ri .„ b L Y any other legislative measure. The Hon. 'eti ,-", had spoken of the advantages attending a Ole , ° l l the duties on tea. Why a reduction on this Vtio e .ne beneficial, most be to the extent of b two C L ilie eee A less reduction than that wouldbe d n o o bbt en tb e at l lee ffe u t aorner. He thought . no one would to i lth o „, r flo of the sugar duties would be beneficial to Li . , l ' ,j,,," : 11 g classes ; and he believed it was gene e 1 1 4 - ;`'ltted that it was not inconsistent to e d ii„, ant ages to the consumer, and at the hilr e , - 7,e give protection to our own colonies. t ir4iel t . ',.• Member had said that the removal of the taxes thtli t fi n had alluded would he of great benefit ; but 110,n,..ancellor of the Exchequer) begged to remind 1 41 4 ttie es 4 lenabe r that the abrogation of those taxes did %kid rrilY involve the others. The Hon. Member cot of th at tho se were new th eor i es o f his (the.Chan fttllttho Exchequer's), but he begged to remind the i l • 'tuber that, so long ago as the year 1830, he one te /t 'S t t e j e r cPeal the duties on beer and leather, awl yet tot ales, that those remissions would not compensate • Zri, l ., sustained to the revenue by the increase on clal l :, e es• However, the receipts of the succeedinz le e tse e ; i "ed that he had not miscalculated, and that 'ks a tb - `,°f those duties would not have been attended. tos,.. L •tr o n t so.a anticipated.—(Hear, hear.) The H . , ) ,;,:7 1 ,„ 4 0 site had said that his objection to the in it'N, - h . 'att that it should be continued beyond the ` t he lv 6t ll the exigencies of the State required. But 1 1 4 1 1 C,.► 4 ie 1 - uvineell or of the Exchequer) begged . to , sa l ); vt b e he had said before, that this tax wolia 10.4ittll proposed but fur the . purpose of meeting Ve leee etis of the State.—(Cries of Hear, hear.") le l loete a time when the affairs of this country, and cee, eent were such, that taxes could not be re tiAlkrld it was only when peace was restored, and b 10,-trfacturers were met in every . market of t L Lett el , it t it was felt necessary to relieve trade from gttl l 3. With respect to the income-tax, he could ki h l lve tt ilt the facility and cheerfulness with which t it th, Of t it:at▪ d, exceeded the most sanguine . expec as dkee 4 (1 •"e who had imposed it. This readines . wa t th e the fact that there had been no petitions ti a. i ncome-tax If the Hon. and Learned Gen- IV l'il'ed through " the records of evidence, 106, 44 think he would find any proof of its un kl' - " of e s; but he would rather see ne . gative tes . - c: : , the concurrence of the people in this tax. „ , 14i nns people were unwilling to pay the tax- , ikt ,. ▪ so direct taxation was always more or less ti kti.44 k il , hut he thought it the least unpopular of any tiii t , e ,n , imposed. He would not agree in any IT ki, 5 44 . ne amendment. If the tax must be re-rr.io t, filo, t he minimum of income subject to taxation NI f a " e ? than at present, then there would Vta t .„ - ;ng off in the revenue, and the 414 1 a C' would not be able to make those redue -1)% ib ° cation on ar ti c les of general consumption 1 4% 1 40 i 4 had proposed. The only other course left PteOf .... r n was to increase the burden on those pos i gr eater incomes, which the Government was ) % %t ikltZ e e tt to do. The Hon. Gentleman had no right QI N ." %at the income-tax would be continued be- Ituni t Z,Years but to reduce its amount durlngahat ,!Itile kt """ 1 not' oe prudent or politic. They had en- IttOti `!hired of make the income-tax subservient to the a ° l ,,' ; `",e poor man by reducing taxation upon some oh, eoi t ' n ' e 'es which came into general consumptioe— I N:: , e - n, /ke• The House had affirmed the policy lee, consumption— :e 1 - -: e) a majority of 238, and he thought it Ntfi tt e. li therefore, to go into any lengthened de- L sit.. tel e ,,,„Witli regard to the propriety and judgment e N:tite e - „`,. 4 - 4 1 of the articles, the taxation upon which ohe nil e eroposed to reduce, he would not now say N l ' , hf, I f the lion, and Learned Gentleman objected ?JO 1 4 _iglit do so * in a more fitting manner, when , ` V e t et i/ s u rought seriatim under the notice of the Ni n te , 11°11 the whole, therefore, he considered that is th i l ha ti r- , t4 k ent could not ' have made a better arrange- L L .e,,i "no present, and he should resist the amend -4art1k.1(5)4 the Hon. Member for Liskeard. i t it st a ;,,leli thought the Right lion. Gentleman k% he a s n'gularly unfortunate iu his attempts to an hi,..,vt i'lleeeh of his Hon. and Learned; Friend the V*,lll4qciLiskeard, particularly . in those arguments aN' u e ,Pos ee °n• and Learned Friend had used against st l'. '" tootle of dealing with the finances of the ° INZli i , - It i kelf must have been obvious to every one that Nli e Sv e e e t°l of the Exchequer had throughout his t\ltii . -e ° entering into details and calculations jus v e Pes he professed to entertain of the in li*:lke 441 16 '. t 4,., al prosperity, and the limited duration of ,4 4 ,74 e e '' a x• Ile spoke in general terms, and said ‘ l 4 - ta il " Il e tax was - taken off another source of re -41 ile tall • ash. Y increased, and the Right lion. Gentle lye 16.. 4 t z ed this position by an argument which he tl. t ro th) thought peculiarly inconclusive. Ile ArkkitStetne year 1830, when, by taking the !ax k l ee e otte on malt greatly increased. The Fircum ikb% arid then were, he thought, entirely different. k te efi ll a tli e -4 the tax on beer it was very natural to htektlet e s", e° nstleeption of it would be increased, and, a loe 1 1, `,,tY, the malt tax would increase in the same pro- NIOT ,„Inain the country was then recovering from a y e l44 l 4 e a ` - eee' se e tt e t depression —there had been bad harvests, o!tyl„„n distress, which led to those unfortunate . ki t i 4 ' 7 t in itli'tt t hat had occurred a short time previously. N. ii r j . , l " l " Year were several good harvests in sue- I tz , t th e ‘i trade and commerce had improved. At Naha Y had had several good harvests, unbroken • : fe l , t l ,_ revival in trade and manufactures, and a . b e 'le worse might, in the natural course of Ad th an anticipated. But how were they to meet t _'‘Oti h - le ? lie knew not ; nor could he see much 1 1 0 e2st ( , ) }, - 211 the budget of the Right Hon. Baronet. 4N,l, l ; i s hi s l i w o e:er, decline giving . his support to the mo eettitl. Mei ". and Learned Friend. He did not like e ellethe t a b any better than that Hon. and Learned 17e ,aot afford he thought the finances of the count . ry '44 41 -t u , - “nrd its abolition or reduction. If the in iltptit,oeder,_° abolished, some new tax wou'd be pro *.!..• ho w " could not see, under present circum- N 741 1 4,, Mitt ee a tax less oppressive could be levied. tiah. and- that the tax pressed most un " f that there were abundant in leNe° ham , ..ti ‘ - o h - - snip under its operation, but he could not I,l l ke; lt t ogt c : rdeA a rtY system of modification or classifica -41 oe vzi v i tici ‘! incomes and salaries . could be devised, *,,0,3ht, , log from the operation of the tax some 11174lleklib tr ." ) ,be subjected to it, and others included the - ( te exempted. The income which a man :5 4 4 , erinlti disposable varied according to circiimi 0. 1 446 . . 1 2, 0 degree of knowledge sou the part o 1 14 ' e1: 1 . 0,u by the Government—no degree of care h t , ttk, a uto tt:ern to overcome that difficulty. But 11 1)1 t Ile ° could i t !ti ectee, do this themselves. Each . mankn e ,Neap,,aci attrd. If they founded their calculations t e g lit e .a t th 'tore and not upon income, they would at * kikitaai . ,,., ( "bject of this tax, they would arrive ON L 'lleo r ,„"nnal could fairly expend; but all attempts -e, • , ..e Nit Cu e , a a nd property would end in doing what t ° til t ! s eoe i i tl to be equally unjust and oppressive. But 01 , 4,, 1 neet, th er e'd system of taxation on expenditure ll i: t ee '' d t,„ e object they had in view of having awe - V;te , h . d Ittr t ,l l e ach man would judge for himself what 14 4 rei, - ,' ste it l' to spend, and on that expenditure, be it ev 1 ,,, Pr o ,,_ .tlie State would require him to contribute N,"%l t r ion to the exigencies of the State. That was (41 6tl e tttl e e l3 , h r Y () I' taxation, and he concurred with the '' De en -11 in sayie that this mode of taxation 'utled to cases of great emergency, such as THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1845. war, or perhaps emergencies equal to war in a time of pewee ; and it was the duty of that House to form a scale ef taxation that might fall on expenditure, and fall on it in such a manner that all might contribute their just prop n.tion. He would include in the tax on expenditure assessed taxes, land-taxes, taxes on houses, and so on. Ile would put as large a proportion of it as he could on the luxuries of the rich, but that must also lie kept withia due limits. His limit wou'd be the point of greatest production.—(Hear, hear.) He would not ad vance beyond the point at which individuals would rather submit to certain privations than retain luxuries which they might otherwise enjoy. He thought the tax on luxuries should reach that point which they would find by experience to be the point of greatest production. They could not avoid a tax on articles of general con sumption, because when they wished to raise a revenue they must tax those articles which were the most largely consumed, and therefore they taxed the articles most generally consumed by the lower classes. But if they availed themselves of that opportunity—if they availed themselves of the large surplus in the revenue—if they revised this tax, and based it on sound principles— they might raise a tax for the service of the State with out any extraordinary pressure on the lower classes, and with a full assurance that at the end of three years they would get rid of that most oppressive and most unjust tax. They might have done this, it; in the first place, -they had dealt with protective duties. On the night of Friday the Hon. Member for Stockport asked a ques tion, to which he got no reply. He asked the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of taxes, not for the benefit of the Exchequer, but for the real and not merely nominal benefit of co ' lonial planters, charged to the people of this country by the protective duties. Ile (Lord Howick) did not won der that the members of the Government shrank from answering that question, because it was impossible that they could make any calculation of the burden which would not be revolting to the public feeling. But though they did not learn what the Ministry calculated the amount of that tax to be, they learned this by the universal con fession of every Gentleman on the other side of the House, that all protective taxes, or, in the language of the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, " all pro tection involved a tax on the community." They learned from the Right Hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade, and he could not give the actual amount of the tax upon sugar, but he said this—that 245,0001. was the maximum thus obtained—that it might rise to this, but that he did not think it would. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche quer, and the Bight Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, had been afraid to state the actual amount for the information of the country ; but if the calculations of the Hon. Member for Stockport were ex aggerated, why did they not submit their own calcula turns to the House ? They did not think proper to do so, and for a very good reason they did not think proper to take that course, and they, therefore, tacitly ad mitted—that a tax was levied upon the people, beyond what went into the Exchequer, upon the article of sugar. On the same principle they levied a tax on coffee, on cheese, on tobacco, on butter, and above all, on corn. They knew this to be the fact—they knew it to be so, and he (Lord floss ids) did not hesitate to avow his firm conviction, that if they had been prepared on a careful reflection of the amount of the burden so imposed, and levied not for the public service, but for the special benefit of a p articular class—if they had been prepared to look on the amount of this burden, and to remove it, they might have given relief to the consumer, and, above all, to the industrious classes of this country, at the same time leaving the finances of the empire in such a state as to give every reason for a well grounded coy fidence that, before the expiration of the three years, the deficiency in the revenue:would be fully covered. He was persuaded that this result would follow ; and he hoped that, before the next general election, the electors of England would well consider this—whether this odious tax —a tax for the purpose of maintaining the system of protection, because, disguise it how they might, they came to that at last—whether the income-tax should be taken on their shoulders for the purpose of bolstering up, for a few years longer, that system of protection which even the members of the Government were fain to admit was contrary to the principles of reason and of common sense. To this principle of common sense 'they must come at last, instead of as at present attempting to cor rect and improve the income-tax, which, after all they could do, would still remain oppressive and obnoxious. He did trust that the time was not far distant when they would see the common-sense necessity of relieving the country by taking of a tax which produced nothing to the Exchequer and was most obnoxious to the feelings of the people. Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard was not so satisfacs tory as might have been expected from him. He asked the House to record their opinion of the income-tax. He characterized it as odious and unjust, but he did not try to render that more tolerable which was to be per petual. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed that there was not one in that House but who thought thatthe property tax was not to be a tax renewable for three years but a tax for ever. If they thought that were a tax merely for three years, they would bear it as an inevitable necessity ; but the case was wholly different, for. in the course of the last four weeks, not one individual had hot up to state his own personal opinion that the tax would be removed at the end of that period. Lot it be fairly in the power of Parliament to do so—let them have the power of removing it at that period, but let them not take the dicta of the Treasury benches on that subject. They ought not to be contented with the statement of any Minister. They should, under these circumstances, make the Bill as little oppressive and ob noxious as possible. He did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland that it was im possible to make a tax on property either efficient or valuable. He did acknowledge, that a tax on property was more difficult than a tax on income. But when the Noble Lord asked his Right Hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, " How will you measure the in terest of an annuitant ?" He (Sir R. 11. Inglis) would reply,—lf the heir apparent derived a life interest from a freehold, or from the funds, it mattered little to him, for the mere purposes of taxa tion, from which of them he derived it, as he paid the tax equally upon both. The Right Hon. Baronet then contended that the tax should be levied upon incomes ranging above 150/., and that some improved system of ascertaining the incomes of the individuals so taxed ought to be adopted in order to do away with the Go vernment temptation to fraud. He did not believe that the proposed reductions on the 420 articles named by the Right Hon. Baronet would so materially benefit the poor man as some Hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. Certainly the reduction would be of some service to the poor, but still he thought there were higher considera tions than those which actuated the Right Hon. Baronet in the disposal of this surplus. The Right Hon. Ba ronet could not deny that he might have made other re ductions which might have proved of more value to the country. The Right Honourable Baronet had a larger surplus than was ever possessed by any other Minister—indeed he believed at no period within the present generation had a Minister been able to come down to that House, and state that he was in possession of a clear surplus of 3,500,000/. Now he could not but think that a certain portion of that sum might have been thrown back up in the country in a manner which would have :tended more to the general interest of the community. He could have wished that something might have been done to relieve the spiritual destitution of the country, which, ho contended, was as directly connected with the social ill feeling which at present existed, as any two of the propositions which had been brought forward by Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. But there was another consi deration of a pecuniary nature which induced him to make this suggestion. An impediment some thirty or forty years ago was thrown in the way of spiritual charity, and this impediment had been continued down to the present day,notw.thstanding it went indirect opposition to the religious principles of the country. The House was probably not aware of the amount of money withdrawn from ebaritable sources by the operation of the legacy duty. The sum raised by this tax was small indeed in a national point of view, but still suffi cient to restrict the channel of spiritual charity. In the case of the British and Foreign Bible Society, the amount paid in duty upon legacies bequeathed in the last three years, was 2,900/ But perhaps, in the case of the Church Missionary Society, the interference had restricted the direction of spiritual charity. The amount paid by that Society in the last three years had been 1,5951, or an average of 500/. Now, ho did not think there was any political economist who would object to relieving these charities from, in a 'mama( point of view, the exceedingly low duty imposed on them. No ruin could say that the amount was sufficient in the ag gregate to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in con tinuing this impost, while, on the other hand, did not the insignificanceof the amount justify its being withdrawn? The whole amount did not, he believed, exceed 50,0001, but for the sake of argument he would say 75,000/ per annum. It was an exceedingly small sum, in a national point of view, but when applie y d to purposes of spiritual charity the amount became of some importance. He wa not aware that he bad any further suggestion to make to the House, but he could not conclude without stating that unless he heard very different arguments than those ' which had been adduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should feel it his duty to support the amendment. Mr. WARBURTON said if the income-tax could be adjusted without diminishing the receipts of the Exche quer, it would, no doubt, be an improvement in principle of an income-tax. But he thought the arguments of the Right Hon. Baronet were fallacious. The principle ho laid down upon which they ought to levy the income tax, he understood to be this :—lf a person possessed an income for three years, he was to be taxed to the same extent as if he had an income for life. But if the sug gestion of the Right Hon. Baronet were adopted, they would tax the perpe'unnt at the time when ho had transferred his interest to a third party—a man who possessed An annuity for three years was to be taxed at the same rate as a person who possessed the re ' version of that annuity for twenty, or, in fact, at a time when the person entitled to the reversionary interest, ought to bear some portion of the burden. Now they must recollect that the reversionary interest constituted one seventeen twentieths of the whole value of the per petuitants. They, therefore, could not proceed with a property-tax upon the principle of capitalisation. They could not, for instance, impose the tax upon the party en titled to the reversion, because he would very reasonably turn round and sey he had no property whatever in pos session —(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the laying on the income-tax or not, if he thought they could get rid of those abominable taxes, such as the protective duties on the West India interest, or the protective duties afforded to that interest, v‘ hich Hon. Gentlemen who sat on the opposite benches particularly represented, by re moving the income-tax, he would gladly do so. But still he thought it much better to continue a property-tax be cause it did not require those expensive establishments which were inseparable from the taxes imposed on to , bacco, soap, or other articles. It was a much better system of taxation, to raise what the State required di rectly, than resorting to an indirect method which was attended with so mui 11 expense ; and he thought that when the matter was fully and clearly explained to the great body of the people, direct taxation would be more popular than any other. He was sincere in the expression of this opinion, and although, in his own town, the largest portion of the population were shopkeepers and tradesmen, he would sooner lose Lis election than mis-state the matter to them. With regard to his vote on that occasion— (Laughter)—he certainly could not support the propo sition of the Hon. Member for Liskeard, because he did not tell us in what it was the inequality of the property tax consisted. According to his conception the prin ciple of an income-tax ought to be to [bake every person who possessed the means to contribute to it, and while they possessed large incomes let them pay the tax. He would deal the same with the professional man of 12,000/. a year. Let him pay his income-tax so keg as his 12,000/. a year lasted. Mr. M. MILNES, after giving the best consideration to the subject, had come to the conclusion, and to which conclusion he hoped to adhere, that the operation of direct taxes was the best, and at the same time the most economical way of raising the revenue of this country. He came to this conclusion, because he believed that by di rect taxation they could get larger sums from the rich classes than they could by indirect taxation from the poor. With respect to the Noble Lord the Member for Sunder land laying down curtain propositions, which he might or might not believe, he (Mr. Milnes) adopted that large assumption upon which the greater portion of the Noble Lord's speech was founded, that it was impossible to raise the necessary revenue of this country simply by taxing what the Noble Lerd called expenditure, and without any income-tax, but he differed with the Noble Lord, and he believed other Members would do so with him, when the Noble Lord anticipated that an income tax would relieve the country from the burden of protec tive duties. 'The question of protective duties was the one now in dispute. It was the question which at pre sent divided lion. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches from the Noble Lord, and those who supported him. It was the great and prominent question, as to whether or not it is better, in the present complication of the national interests, to support what were called the protective duties on the land of England and other protective duties on the colonies of the West Indies. He believed upon that principle the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government came into that position which he now occupied, and he be lieved it was a proposition which he had adhered to, and a proposition to which he would still adnere. It was not agreeable to the common sense of the country, that the income derived from trades and professions, and under uncertain sources, should be taxed as much as perrnaneet property, which was enjoyed without toil and without risk. He thought it would not be difficult to establish a satisfactory distinction, for the country would not look at very nice points of gradation. Sup pese there were a per ventage of three or four per cent. on trade, professions and annuities, and a higher tax upon fixed property, the country would be satisfied. The Right lion. Baronet had formerly said that nothing but the greatest emergency would justify the imposition of the income-tax. He had since changed his mind on that point, and now thought it a good tax to continue three years longer without an absolute necessity. Perhaps, then, if he should come to change his mind again, and to think it . a tax that ought to be continued, he would also think it would be well to modify the imposition, and to regulate it by the principle of equity. He was sorry the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard was not in his place, as he wished to ask who would vote with him (Mr. C. Buller) ? The lion. Member for Kendal could not vote with him, as he was against direct taxation ; and other Members were in an equally difficult position. He (Mr. Milnes) thought there was no use in the discussion. The time had gone by for it. and that was when the Right lion. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) intimated his intention of renewing the tax. It was at that time the House should have insisted on modifications of the tax, to adapt it to the circum stances of the country. He, therefore, regarded the present debate as a useful preface to the future conside ration of the question. It was remarkable how few words had been uttered in the House against the tax ; end notwithstanding what had been said of its ob noxious and inquisitorial character, if the manufacturing classes thought it so much more obnoxious and inquisi torial than the excise laws, the House would have heard a few more practical objections, and would have received a few more petitions. He thought the assent of the public had been given to a certain amount of direct taxation. Still he did not think it would be wise to carry the principle too far, or to place the taxation of the coun try in such a position that every man should palpably feel every accession to taxation. That would place our relations with foreign nations in a hazardous position, and he therefore thought that the honour and prosperity of. the country would be best secured by a combination of direct and indirect taxation. Mr. - HAWES could tell the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract why it was that he thought the people bad accepted the income-tax. Tho Hon. Gentle man thought it was proved by the fact that no petitions had been presented against the tax. But, in the first place, the tax was only three per cent., and it was intro duced to make up for a deficiency. Next, the people were told that other measures, taken at the same time, would cause trade to spring up, and so remove the ne cessity for continuing the tax, which should be repealed in three years. The tax being again to be imposed was accompanied with certain remissions of taxation, by which, as they were again told, the trade of the country was to receive an additional impulse, and the tax to be repealed in three more years. These statements in duced numbers in the House and out of it to acquiesce in the tax, who would be otherwise as much opposed to it as any one else, though he admitted that there were also many who considered it a good tax. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) thought that the tax was not necessary, but that all the important reductions of taxation could be made without it. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) stated that the revenue of the year ending sth of April, 1846, would be 55,100,0001., and the expenditure 49,690,0001, leaving a balance of 1,400,000/. The Hon. Member then read several items of the proposed reduc tions of the Customs, to show that in that department, according to Sir R. Peel's showing, there would be an increase of 300,000/. As to corn, the Right Hon. Baronet had not taken that into his estimates -- Sir 11. PEEL said that the revenue on corn last year was 1,050,000/„ but in consequence of the good harvest, he calculated it at a less amount by 500,0001 for next year. Mr. lIAWES said that he would be content to deal with the surplus of 1,400,000/. And he thought that with that balance in hand the reduction on articles of trade might be effected without the income-tax. The tsoction duty seemed to have been unnecessarily re pealed, and he did not think the expense of collecting was a reason for taking off the duty on 430 Articles of customs, for the expense of collecting remained the same. All the expense of inspection and examination must be continued the same as before. But really it was for the sake of the reduction of the sugar duties the in come-tax was continued.—(Hear, hear.) Although the Hon. Baronet admitted that sugar would be one penny per lb. the cheaper to the consumer in this country, no one could estimate the cost of protecting the West Indian interest at less than 1,000,0001, aril now the income-tax was continued to benefit that interest further by the reduction of the duty upon sugar. He did not think that the abolition of the duty on coal exportation, on cotton, and glass, justified the continuance of the in come-tax, after the positive engagement of the Govern ment to give it up, upon the revival from the depression a hie!' rendered its first imposition necessary. He always paid the utmost respect to what fell from his Honourable Friend the Member for Keirial (Mr. Warburton), but he could not agree with him, nor with those other persons who thought that the system of direct taxation ought to he promoted. He (Mr. Hawes) thought that the House should pause before it assented to the proposition of making the direct taxation bear a greater proportion to the whole taxation of the country than it did at present. The House seemed to him not to be aware of the pro portion which the direct taxation bore to the whole taxa tion of the country. Why, taking an average of three years, from 1841 to 1843 inclusive, it appeered that the amount of direct taxation was 20,000,000 L, that of indi rect taxation, 30,000,0001 ; and if to the direct taxa tion the 5,000,000/. derived from the property-tax were added, that would make it 25,000,0001., which was about half of the whol6 taxation: It was impossible to say that this tax would be removed in three years, and, therefore, he thought the Honourable Member for Liskeard had a right to call on the House to declare generally that the tax was unjust, and though the country might submit to this tax under the belief that it would not be permanent, and while other taxes were removed, they would not endure it if commerce and trade languished, and profits diminished, and the means of employing the working classes les sened. Ho believed the tax was unjust, and that it could not by any means be made just, He_ was of that opinion in 1842 ; he was of the same opinion ; and he was, therefore, perfectly consistent in voting for the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend. Unless a case was made out showing that the income-tax was not unequal, unjust, or inquisitorial, he could not vote for it; and believing that it was unjust, unequal, and inquisito rial, nothing short of an imperative necessity would in duce him to vote for it now or at any future time.— (Laughter.) Mr. SPOONER said he wished in a few words to ex plain the reasons why he should vote against the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard. Ile thought it would be much better to bring specific and definite charges against the income-tax than to bring forward general charges against it. He agreed with the Hon Baronet the Member for Oxford (Sir H. Inglis) that it was unjust to tax a man whose income depended on his personal exertions, the continuance of which rest, d upon his health, in the same degree as the person who derived the same amount of income from a permanent property, and which was subject to no contingencies.—(Hear, hear.) He also thought with the Hon. Baronet, that persons should be taxed only fir the amount of their income above 1501.; that a person, for instance, having 155/, should be taxed only on the 5/. above the 150/.—(Hear, hear.) lie likewise agreed with him, that a distinction should be made between annuities and perpetuities. He could not come to the conclusion to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who proposed the present motion had come, and on which he called on the House to agree with him, that there was no reason to believe that there would be a re lief from the tax at the end of three years. With regard to the principle of taxation, he thought that that of taxing property was the best, and was one to which the whole nation was prepared to consent. He thought that the effect of the budget of the Right Honourable Baronet would be to extend the industry of the country He had no doubt it would be found exceedingly bene ficial to many large branches of manufacture. He could not agree with that part of the motion which had refer ence to the inquisitorial nature of the tax, for if those words meant anythin g , they meant that the manufactur ing, commercial, and trading interests should be exempt from the tax, for to them the inquisitorial part of the tax applied. Now he thought it would be very unfair to exempt them from the tax, especially as it was intended to increase the manufacturing and commercial industry of the country. He had a motion on the paper which at the proper time he would bring before the House as briefly as he could, but for the reasons he had just stated he felt bound to oppose the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.—(llear, hear.) Mr. HUME thought that the financial statement made by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ought not to be mixed up with the present motion, for the Right Hon. Baronet told them he did not want to impose the income- tax for financial real„ s, and had shown that up to April, 1846, including the income-tax that would be due then, he would have a surplus of 1,400,000/., leaving a margin for the Chinese money; and that included the large expenditure of one million for the navy, which he, for one, thought was unnecessary. But the real ques tion before the House was, whether they were more willing to raise 5,000,0001., by direct taxation from pro. perty and income, than to allow the present system of indirect taxation to continue. His own opinion was in favour of direct taxation, and it was upon that ground he would give his vote on the present occasion. He was, he confessed, surprised at the calculation of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), respecting the amount of direct taxation. His Hon. Friend stated that 20,000,0001. were raised by direct taxation, and that 30,000,000/. were raised by indirect taxation. He (Mr. llume) could not find anything like that out of the ordinary revenue of the country, which was about 50,000,000/. No less than 194 millions were derived from the Customs, certainly not a direct tax; 134- millions from the Excise, not a direct tax. The Stamps duty was not a direct tax. The only direct taxes were the land and the assessed taxes, amounting to 44 millions. Including the income-tax there would be 94 millions of direct taxes, but leaving out the income-tax there were only 45 millions raised from direct taxation in stead of 20,000,000/. One of his great complaints since he had the honour of a seat in that ap House was that the taxes were levied from articles used by the poorer classes, and that property was almost entirely exempt from taxation. In France and in Belgium the great bulk of the revenue was raised by direct taxation, but in this country it was quite different, and the consequence was that the people were divided into two classes, rich and poor. He had shown in 1835, that the amount of indirect taxation was 725 per cent., that of mixed direct and indirect taxation 10 or 12 per cent., and the rest ho would allow to be direct taxation. He did not understand that the Right Hon. Baronet put this as an additional tax, but as a change of taxation ; and when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman spoke slightingly of the 430 articles which were to he swept away, he forgot that those articles were generally useful in manufactures, and though they might not be of much benefit in themselves, they would be beneficial in enabling their manufacturers to compete with fo reigners. His Hun. Friend the Member for Oxford said, that the spiritual destitution of the people ought to be provided for ; but he (Mr. Hume) thought there were sufficient funs to provide for that, if they were pro perly applied.—(Hear, hear.) But he would also tell his Hon. Friend, that when the physical destitution of the poorer classes was provided for, they would be much better disposed to listen to spiritual instruction. The great point was to secure the foreign markets for their produce. He thought the taking off the duty on cotton was most essential to the interests of the country, and would tend to place it in that position which it ought to hold with respect to other nations. He was surprised to think that his Noble Fiend, the Member for Lam - both, should think that the removal of the duty on the 400 articles that had been alluded to, would be of no im portance ; for his own part, he thought the best results would take place from the removal of the duty on those articles. Foreigners thought that laws were made in this country for the interest of its inhabitants, while in fact their operation had hitherto been to check industry. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had said that if ho was satisfied that tax would benefit the country, he would vote for it. Now to him (Mr. Hume) it appeared to be the very means of creating capital, and thereby extend ing the interests of the country. He thought that in this country, and every other, taxation ought to be direct, and it was upon that ground that he supported the plan of the Right lion. Gentleman. As a whole, he objected, however, to the course that had been pursued by him with respect to corn and sugar. Sir R. PEEL then rose to address the House. Before he said anything on the amendment now before the House, he wished to notice two speeches that had been made in the course of the present discussion, upon points not immediately connected with the motion. Ho would first allude to the speech of the Hon. Member for Lam beth. It appeared from that speech that the Hon. Mem ber did not, very well understand the financial statements which he had made -upon a former occasion. 'The Hon. Gentleman objected to the imposition of the income-tax, upon the ground that he thought there was no necessity for its imposition, because he thought that by the state ment which he (Sir R. Peep•had msde there would re main a surplus. The Hon. Gentleman had said that he (Sir IL Peel) had calculated that on the sth of April, 1846, that there would be a surplus of 1,400,0001., and the Hon. Gentleman had said that that surplus would enable the Government to remove the duty on cotton, glass, and even the duty on coals. Now the statement he (Sir R. Peel) made was this, that he apprehended that on the sth of April, 1846, supposing the income tax to be continued, that the net revenue would amount to 53,700,0001.; but in that sum would be in cluded 609,0001. to be received on account of China ; but that supposing Parliament did not grant the conti nuation of the income-tax, that then they must deduct 2,600,000/. from that amount, but they would be entitled to add to the ordinary permanent revenue 2,600,0001.. because a half year's income-tax would be received, and then they would have a revenue of 51,100,000/.—that wits supposing the property-tax was not continued. If, however, the House continued the income-tax, then there would certainly be a surplus of 1,400,0001. Now the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth seemed to be bewildered about the balance in the Exchequer in April, 1845. He said that at that period the Govern ment would have a balance in the Exchequer of upwards of 5,000,000/. Now the Hon. Gentleman could hardly ht. aware of the manner in which that amount would have to be applied, or he certainly would not have made the observations that ho had made. Two millions of that amount would have to be applied to the payment of Exchequer Bills issued for opium. Another portion would go to the reduction of the National Debt, and anther portion would go to the increase of the balance in the Exchequer, and in that respect certainly the Go vernment were in a more favourable position than in f orm er years, but that surplus could not be considered fairly applicable to the services of the current year. Ott the whole, therefore, he thought that the Hon. Gentle mates calculations and his reasons for opposing the in come-tax were altogether without foundation. Thm Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward the amendment had made a speech condemning the 1 policy of the Government, instead of concluding with one 1 against the income-tax. Now he hoped that the House would not commit itself in details until they heard the particular proposition,because when they came to the policy of discussing the Bill, and of making amendments in the existing law, they would be better able to consider the matter in its proper light. Now he would consider the motion of the Hon. Member for Oxford. He proposed that 1301. a year should be the zero of taxation. Now what was that ? Why the proposal meant this—that every man that now contributed to the income- tax should deduct from the payments that he made for the income tax time sum of 41. 10s. The meaning of that was, that he should be enabled to require from the Exchequer a deduction of 41. 10s. He (Sir R. Peel) had not the means exactly of knossing, but ho would suppose that 240,000 persons contributed to the income- tax, and sup posing that each of them were to deduct 4/. 10s., that would amount to upwards of 1,000,000/. ; and every man in that case would be obliged to state what his income was. A new process would, therefore, have to be in troduced. Now before the House adopted such a proposition, he hoped they would seriously_ con Sider the course which they really ought to pursue. lie now came to what he must call the main . should c q o u n e fi s t r i m ') a ni n r e t s h o e l u c t a i s o e n , was free to admit that it was open to the House to eon ann d f a t v h o a u t r n o w t. t , h w e h p et r h e e s r ,n t t he i i aider whether the proposition should be affirmed or not, and Hon. Gentlemen opposite were wrong in supposing that he had ever objected to that question being open for the consideration of the House. Ile thought it but fair that it should be considered open to the House to discuss the question ; and those who had voted against the in come-tax formerly could now fairly vote for it, because they must at once see it was necessary ; and the question then was, whether it was not better to continue this tai than adopt other means. There was no doubt that the present was certainly the best mode of taxation. It was possible, certainly, that any deficiency might be raised by other means ; for instance, they might put a tax of 2d. on letters, instead of ld. He did not think any past experience could induce them to put a tax of 5L per cent. on income. But still there were means of taxing and keeping up the credit of the country without the income-tax ; but the question was whether the in come-tax was not the best mode. He would not revive that night the question of the sugar duties. The House had confirmed the course taken by .the Government Many had objected to it, but the sense of the House was in favour of the Government. But supposing there was a loss of 1,300,000/. next year in the sugar duties, still , and it was with , an opposite had r th e e sp re ee w t o te ult t l h b a e t a th s a u t r t p h lu e s t o i f on 2 . ,o G oo e , l o lt O l O em /. declaimed in such eloquent terms. Now, with respect to that surplus of 2,000,000 L, the Government proposed to remove altogether the duty on raw cotton, the excise duty on glass, to abolish restrictions on skill, to remove the p ue l c i pt e je a oa t n i o i3 n na t o t manufactures or 360 other articles, of skill, of 2,000,000/. duty a w l h t o i c g which ph uponre e r v making a n ne t k e t d ii en eg t h s a, e r a e and redaction and upwar d s. He (Sir Robert Peel) st ill rema i ne d c f opinion that it would * be difficult to appl— y the remaining surplus of 2,000,0001. to the revival of industry in any other manner than by the remission of the taxes which was proposed by the Government. He saw some Gentlemen opposite, wile shared in the waggery of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, when he was speak ing upon the proposition for the reduction of the duty on cottoteand who laughed when he talked about those who wore " fustian," and women who " wore two new gowns in a year," and who, by the reduction of the duty on cotton, would save the enormous sum of 31d. in twelve months.—(A laugh.) On this ground it was that the Hon. Member for Liskeard scouted the notion of the reduction of the duty on cotton. Now, it was necessary that he should state the grounds on which it was pro posed by the Government to remove the duty on cotton. It would first facilitate its introduction at the port of import ; and it had also been stated to the Government., that there was no tax which was more unequal than the duty on raw cotton. They had been told that the duty on muslins, &c., was little or nothing, while that upon raw cotton was immense. In the United States there was no duty on raw cotton, neither was there iu Ger many or Switzerland ; in France then was a duty, but then there was a drawback that made up the equivalent. Ire thought it wise to reduce a duty that amounted to eight or twelve per cent. on the raw ma terial, and which would enable this country to enter into competition with foreign ones. It' the House thought the remission unwise, they would propose some other which would conic in competition with it as calling for removal, and if it were proposed to reduce the duty on tobacco or tea, he felt confident that the ultimate decision of the House would be in favour of the proposal of the Government. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that the reduction of the duty on glass was politic. With respect to that article there had been no clamour ; and he wo•ald tell the Hon. Gentleman that he very much doubted whether the chief manufacturers . _ in glass rejoiced in the proposed alteration. But, so far from the fact of the great manufacturers being quite willing to have the duty retained being a reason for re taining it, it was one of the strongest arguments which could be alleged for its abolition.—(Hear, hear.) He ventured to predict that after the sth of April they would find a very extensive competition in the glass manufacture. It was quite a mistake to suppose that immense capital and enormous edifices were required for the manufacture of glass. He believed that the large manufacturers would themselves derive advantage from the change. The total amount of exports in that beau tiful manufacture glass did not amount to 400,0001. By removing the duty altogether, he believed they would establish a manufacture, less important indeed than that of woollen, but still a manufacture which would be the source of increased industry, of increased profit, and of increased commerce with other countries.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had been particularly merry on the subject of the proposed alterations in the tariff. Now he really thought it was hardly worthy of Hon. Members to select four or fire articles with hard names and inquire is hat benefit would be derived from their free importa tion. It was very easy to ask what advantage would the public expect to obtain from the remission of duty on divi-divi. --(Laughter.) But in former days the charge brought against the Government was that they compli cated the tariff by leaving upon it 500 articles from which they derived no revenue, and they were told that it was merely the love of meddling with commercial pursuits which induced them to retain them. Well, they f. lt that there was force in that objection ; but now that they proposed the remission of this duty on a number of articles, Hon. Gentlemen asked, what was the use of removing the duty 2 (Hear, hear.) Still, on the whole, he thought it was for the interest of commerce that the alteration should take place. In the 430 articles were included many of the raw materials of manufacture.—(Hear. hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said they permitted alum to be im ported free of duty, in order that bread might be adulterated. He aould tell the Honourable Gen tleman that alum was an article which en tered into many important naanufacturt-s in this country, and that there was no article against the duty o n which there had been more urgent representations. There was a manufacture of alum carried on in China. Every one seemed to wish to extend our commercial relations with that country, and to receive from China something else besides tea in return for -our exports. — (Hear, hear.) The supply of alum from China and the Roman States was very limited, and this was another reason for the alteration. Well, then, they remitted the duty on bark, on hides, on shins, on oils, on indigo, and on staves, articles which were all of great import ance to the manufacturers of this country. The total amount of duty remitted was about 350,000/. They were about to establish a traffic in these arti. des perfectly free from Custom-house regulations. If there were any taxes which the Hon. Gentleman wished to remit in pre ference, let him make his proposal ; but after he had done so, he did not despair of receiving the sanction of the House to the alteration proposed by the Government.—( Hear, hear.) Now quite different doctrines appeared to prevail that night, from those which were held last year in reference to the duty on staves. Nothing would be more easy than to show that the agricultural labourer would receive very little direct benefit from the remission of the duty on staves; and if the Hon. Gentleman would calculate the benefit to the labourer and his family, he would find perhaps that the duty was even less than the 3d., which he calculated aa the probable gain for cotton-wool. But what was said last year? They were told that by retaining the duty on staves, they were plucking up by the roots an im portant branch of manufacture in this country, and destroy ing the trade of the cooper. It was said that they had opened Lhe West Indies almost to free competition of American staves, admitting them at a duty of i per cent., and that they were precluding all hopes of a revival of trade in that depart ment. " Remove the duty on staves," said numbers, " and your cooperage will revive, and be able to compete with Ame rica and other countries." Was it, then, any test of this be nefit of removing that tax to say that the agricultural labourer would derive no benefit from it ? Certainly not. By the re mission of duty they caused a revival of trade, and enabled the coopers of this country to compete with those of ether nations ; and, at the same time, they conferred a benefit which, taken in conjunction with other similar benefits, would re-act upon the condition of other classes of the community. —(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the duty on wool. They had heard for three or four successive years of the ad vantages which would be derived from that change, and nearly 1,60 0,000/. of the surplus had been applied under that head. Then, with respect to the auction duty ; while he ad mitted that there had been no clamour for the remission, he thought if ever there was a tax which was unjust in its ope ration, it was the duty paid on the transfer of property by auction; and its chief advantage was to enable persons who wished to sell their estates to ascertain their value by that means, in order that they might afterwards sell them by private contract.—(Hear.) Talk of the income-tax, why there was no part of that tax which was so unjust in principle as the auction duty, as it was at present levied. It was impossible, indeed, to look at the situation of this country, and not feel that strong se-sons might be urged for the repeal or reduction of many duties, which it was not in their power at present to remove.— (Hear, hear.) If the lion. Gentleman could show that there were other taxes which imposed greater turdens than those proposed to be remitted, that no doubt would be a good reason for re-considering their proposals ; but he must say that he thought the voice of the country was, on the whole, in favour of the selection which had been made. He could name taxes, the removal of which would be more sensibly felt by the work ing classes, but he entreated theliouse to bear in mind the pro bable effect of taxes bearing upon the industry of the country. For several years the poor-rate had increased ; last year, how ever, a favourable change had taken place, the increased em ployment of the manufacturing population having re duced the burden. The immediate reduction of duty might be less in the case of cotton or glass at first, than in the case of soap End other articles. Yet, it they were ensuring great branches of manufactures against vicissitudes, and against such distress as that which visited the country in 1840 and 1841 ; if, by removing the , duty on glass, they were giving new scope for employment, they were taking effectual means of diminishing the risk on account of increasing charges for the poor. He would not then enter into the comparative advantages of direct and in direct taxation. They proposed to limit the duration of this tax to the period of three years; and his colleagues and him self had the strongest impression that the interest of the country required its imposition for that period. In order that they might make the experiment fairly, they named articles which pressed heavily upon the industry of the country; and remembering that the foreign trade had risen from 461 mil. lions in 1843 to 50 millions in 1844, hothought they had reason to hope that the effect would be not only to extend the interval industry, but also the external commerce of thecoun try. A tax, on being absolutely removed, ceased to be a di rect source of revenue ; but if they increased the manufac 'tiring prosperity of the country, it would have, if not a direct, at least an indirect effect upon the revenue, and it would, on the whole, be compensated for the loss.—( Hear, hear.) When. they last proposed this tax, the Noble Lord opposite objected to any alteration, from an unwillingness to disturb the efficiency of this great instrument. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that no petitions had been presented against this tax ; and there was no rational way o f accounting for that, except by admitting that the burden would be felt to be less onerous than was ex pected, and t hat the inquisition which had been conducted through the officers of the stamp department had been attended with less of injustice and of the appearance of oppression than many had scorned to anticipate.—( Hear, hear.) The assessed taxes had not fallen ; there was no appearance of a transfer of capi tal in consequence of the imposition ofthis tax. He admitted that the tax was open to great objection, and that the inquisi tion which it involved was painful ; but, considering all the machinery which was in force, and that not a single petition had been presented against the tax, he earnestly hoped that the House would consent to continue it unaltered, without mo dification. He trusted that the House would affirm the pro posal of her Majesty's Government, that they would permit the income-tax to be continued for the period he had proposed, making it a tax upon income and not upon property.—( Hear, hear.) They should not attempt to estimate the relative value of different sources of income. If they did so it would be necessary to ascertain the particular disease under which a man laboured, and the exact reason why this temporary source of revenue was less valuable than a permanent one ; and, in order to effect that ob ject, instead of getting rid of an inquisition, they would have to establish one for the purpose of adjusting all these details, which, if it were carried out with equity, would be ten times more oppressive than the existing inquisition was alleged to have been found.— Hear, hear.) He did hope, therefore, that the House would consent to affirm the proposition of the Go vernment, and affirm it as it stood, without any alteration. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would affirm his tax without alteration. After the flight Hon. Baronet sat down the House was for some time in a state of considerable excitement, and earnest and loud conversation was carried on in every part of the House. At length Mr. SHEIL, who had for some time been in possession of the House, rose and said, that the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, had asked what substitute they would provide in lien of the income-tax. He should for his part say that any impost that cciuld possibly be imposed would he more fair than the income-tax. It was a tax so founded in manifest injustice that he (Mr. Shell) conceived that of all the evidence of odious-iniquity in the imposition of taxation this was the most glaring and unjustifiable. They had disre garded the weights which had been imposed on those who realized incomes from professions and trades, and had attempted to realise from them that supply which ought only to be rea lised from sources which pressed in no way upon them. The Right Honourable Baronet thought to realise an amount by those very means which the Ministry had hitherto been accustomed to lock to in case of deficiency in the revenue. Now, be (Mr. Shed) could not give the Right Hon. Baronet credit for such stolidity, and if he would only tax his ingenuity be was satisfied that he would not find it so difficult a matter as he apprehended to discover a sub titute. He repeated that if the Right Hon. Baronet would only tax his ingenuity, he would find the means of ac compiishing the object which he had before him, and remov ing the obstacle which he had so painfully put before him. Now, he (Mr. Shell) thought that he would not find this so difficult as he conceived it to be. He would not hesitate to tell the Right Hon. Baronet that the whole difficulty might he re moved by a tax analogous to the income-tax ; he would int; pose a tax analogous to the legacy duty on the devolution of property in land. The Right. Hon. Baronet would find in this a source of income for the State which would have all the effect of an income-tax to him. He (Mr. Shell) had heard of a legacy left to Christ Church Hospital. (The lion. Gentle man was here interrupted by Members on the Opposition benches suggesting, that he was wrong in the name. ) Well. if not to Corist's Hospital, at least to some other great public hospital for 140,0001., upon which he understood there was a duty payable, as legacy duty, of 14,0001. Now, if there was a legacy of 14,0001. upon a sum like this, what might not be the amount arising from the whole of the property on which this tax might be levied ? To this tax there could not be the slightest objection ; for between this tax and the income-tax there was the strictest analogy. This was a tax which would in no way press upon the Right Hon. Baronet's opposing friends—the agriculturists. It would in no way affect rents—it would in no way affect wages—it would only lay a reasonable impost upon the transference of land. For this tax there was every reason to be• found in analogy, rea son, and plain common sense. By this means they would provide a means for utterly avoiding the income-tar. l 1 By this means they might annihilate the whole of schedule D. from the list, and yet secure the 1,225,000?. which now consti tuted the whole of the tax derived espesislly from the tax on professional labour. Some reason might be assigned against such an impost in the assertion that it would so largely affect great capit a l. Thi s m i g ht b e title, and yet he (Mr. Shed) thought that this was no great objection when he re flected that it might possibly save the whole of the tax which pressed so heavily on professional labour. Now, what did Mr. Pitt do under similar circumstances? The Right Hon. Baronet had accomplished in 1845 that which Mr. Pitt had never at tempted to do. He (stir. Sheil) w; uld not pretend to institute any comparison between the Right lion. Baronet and his po licy, and that of the great man whom he had named. It was unquestionable that Mr. Pitt was of a very high, ex alted, intellectual grade. But Mr. Pitt had never dared to impose an income-tax otherwise than as a war-tax. In the time of peace Mr. Pitt had never dared to impose a tax of this nature. He had been accustomed to press towards his end, and when disappointed or thwarted had never sent in a series of resignations. But then he had had no incubus of a Russell before his eyes. The income-tax had been first imposed in the year 1793, and immediately on the sot elusion of the war it was remitted ; and it was only on the resumption of the war that it had been again imposed. The Right Hon. Baronet bad said that he had strong reasons for imposing a tax which all allowed to be odious in its nature and unjust in its operation—a tax pressing unequally on every class of society, for it fell with comparative lightness on those whose property would pass unaffected by the impost, while it pressed with a terrible severity on those who were unable to pay. The Right lion. Baronet had spoken loudly on the gene ral prosperity of the country, but he seemed to have lost sight, most conveniently, of the good harvests with which the country had been blessed; but in this unhappy contrast of various cir cumstances the Right Honourable Baronet appeared to have forgotten the bad harvests and the consequent difficulty which had been endured during the time of his predecessors. Had these circumstances not occurred, the consumption would never have been impaired and no deficit would have been suffered. But in the endeavour to repair this deficit the Right Hon. Baronet had determined to remit the imports on glass, sugar, and restore the income-tax. And what assurance had the public that this tax would not be increased from three to six, and even ten per cent.? Could the Right Eon. Baronet say that such would not be the case ? He well knew that no assurance of his at the present time would hold, and that none that he gave would hold good, if, at the end of the period for which it was imposed, any circumstances should arise to render its continu ance convenient. The income-tax had never been considered any other than a war-tax. It had b. en imposed in the midst of darkness and storms, when the country was threatened on every side in 1793, and immediately on the peace of Amiens it was repealed ; nor did the Ministry dare, even when the power Napoleon was swelling to its highest, to impose the tax on the recommencement of the war, and it was only at the invocation of England, he might say of all England, that it was again im posed. Yet slid the Right Hon. Baronet come down to the House in the year 1842, when on all hands anti in every coun try there was nought but peace and quietude, when all was se rene, when the sky was light and the breezes of prosperity fanned the sails of the vessel of the State, the First Lord of the Treasury came clown to that House and proposed a tax which was equi valent to a tax for war. The horizon was clear and the air was still—the darky storms which has gathered in the distance had passed away—China, to the surprise of the Right Hon. Gentle man opposite, had become from a formidable enemy a happy ally, and had already opened such fresh and extended fields for our commerce as to cause a new establishment in the Board of Trade. France, that had assumed all the air and panoply of war, had already entered into new treaties for amity and good will. That dispute respecting the right of search, which at one time had been likely to bring down the gloom of ruin and dis ruption overt' every country in Europe, had passed by like the sighings of ass autumnal breeze. The Peninsular—that con stant source of anxiety—had settled into an apathy under the Protectorate of France, as submissively as if it hail been only an island in the Pacific. Italy had become the amiable adopter of Conservative institutions ; and it was under these circum stances—these felicitous circumstances—that the Right Hon. Baronet, with a modesty peculiarly his own, came down to the House and proposed a war-tax. Was it to be wondered at that there was complaint and disatisfaction when the Right Hon. Baronet was doing more than ever Lord Castlereagh had dared to do in the worst period of the war, when there was such an endeavour to legislate for the privileged classes ? He (Mr. (Shell) believed that one of the worst of the oppres sions of this odious tax was that which fell upon those who had the tax to pay on 1501., who vainly endeavoured to veil their necessities and preserve their grade, through the thin tran sparent veil with which they covered their poverty and distress. What could be more unjust, then, than to impose the same tax on the product of intellectual toil, on that which might be called the strength of a man's mind, and on that produce which came from the land, income which was itself as stable as the earth it came from.—( Hear, bear.) What could be more unjust than to impose the same tax on John in the Garret and John on the Woolsack of the House of Lords ?—(Cheers.) What could be more unjust than to impose the same tax on the First Lord of the Treasury with his 30,0001. a year, and the gen tleman who reports his speech on the income-tax in the gal lery of the House of Commons ?—( Cheers, and counter-cheers, continued for some seconds.) Those were men of accomplished minds, minds embellished with all the beauties of literature, dedicated to that profession in which many of the fir t men of the world bad, at one time, been engaged. These came within the influence of the income-tax, but at the expense of great wear and tear both of mind and body. If one of these men lost his health, he was perhaps reduced to a si tuation most appalling, and yet that man, condemned to feel the gall of bitterness at home—(the conclusion of the sentence was lost in the cheering which was re-echoed from all parts of the House.) This tax—( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear.") He had said nothing to wound the feelings of any Gentleman upon the Treasury benches. His comparison might be a feeble but it certainly was a faithful one.— ( Hear, hear.) If the tax were unjust, if it were ineAisitorial, if it were immoral, if it held out a premium to fratuF," should it not at once be done away with ? They would say that these were the visionary and fallacious suggestions of a factious man, but if he denounced the income-tax as unjust, if he de nounced it as inquisitorial, if he denounced it as im moral, it was denounced as inquisitorial, as immoral, and as unjust by the very first men of Europe. It was denounced by Mr. Baring, the prince of commerce, by Wilberforce the high-minded, the moral, the kind-hearted, and the good ; and, though last, not the least worthy among these, by the late Sir Robert Peal, and they would for give him, if he venturei to say, that they would have reason to exclaim with him, " Patris dictum sapientis temeritas filii comprobavit." Mr. COBDEN, who spoke from the lower end of the House, and was in the opening indistinctly heard, said the income-tax was not understood. The most intelligent portion of the public were, up to this moment, unable to understand the real nature of the income-tax ; and the Members of that House had been themselves unable to obtain the information for them. It was this question of the income-tax that had brought up the sugar duties, and this measure was as incomprehensible as the sub ject they were liscussing. They had tried extremely hard to get information from the Government, but neither he nor any other lion. Member could induce them to give it. Now he ventured to say that the sugar duties were as bad as the in come-tax itself, and when the people properly understood the question, they would entertain a widely different feeling than the Government said they did now. The Government had been asked a question, but they refused to answer it ; but he could tell the House and the country, that at the end of the year the public would find that the measure now brought forward would not have cheapened their sugar. It appeared to him that there was a great misapprehension prevailing in that House with regard to the operation or tendency of the income-tax. He was not one of those who agreed with Hon. Members who said there had been a vast deal of evasion of the incom e-tax, but, on the con trary, he believed a great deal more ha been paid than ought to have been paid. He had a letter in his pocket from Bir mingham which would bear him out in this statement. He hai consulted with the Hon. Member behind him (Mr. Kuntz), and he believed the Hon. Member could bear out the correct ness of the extract he was about to read to them. The writer said—" I know from my own knowledge that in this town many individuals were made to pay_ the income-tax a lth oug h they were insolvent at the time. They went time after time to the Commissioners to endeavour to get it taken off, but the only answer they could get was—you must pay the whole. The income-tax has sent many persons to a premature grave, and I know there are thousands in this town who sill not expose their affairs to the Commissioners."—( Hear, hear.) Now, lion. Gentlemen could gather from this the feeling which prevailed in Birmingham with regard to the income tax. But the House had lost sight of an important fact. Those persons who were charged under schedu!e 1) are sub ject to the scrutiny and the catechisation of a Board of Com missioners; and ho ventured to say that if Members :of that or the other House of Parliament had to go before commissioners to be scrutinised, in the same way as tradesmen, the income tax would not last a month. Why they had lost sight of the most important, the most obnoxious, and the most vexatious part of the income-tax. It was not the amount that the people complained of—for he would venture to say, if they would only modify the tax so as to inflict only a fair proportion of the tax upon the industrious and middle classes of the country —the people would not object to it. But lie told them they were deceiving themselves, if they fancied that the people of this country would permanently submit to the tax.—( Hear, hear.) They went under the provisions of this Act to a tradesman in Cheapside, or a banker, and asked him to submit, at the London Tavern, to the scrutiny of a body of gentlemen, who were his neighbours, his last balance-sheet. What was the answer the messenger generally got to this application? Why it was this :—" I have been afraid to let my wife see it, and, indeed, I never let my sons see it." Ah, but the law, said the messenger, had power to compel the tradesman or banker to submit for inspection his balance-sheet or accounts ; and if he refused, what did they do? Why they levied a fine of 501.—and the tradesman paid it, in preference to exposing his affairs. The Noble Lord the lion. Member for Sunderland need not give his warning, for they might depend upon it that, at the next election, they would find that bo'll Whigs and Tories were averse to submit ting to this tax. They might depend upon this, although no outbreaks or tumults had taken place out of doors. Men could not petition against this law, because the tendency of the Bill itself was to prevent the people getting together and talking the matter over. Nay, a man absolutely did not like to consult his neighbour upon this subject, hut they felt the grievance never theless. In London, certainly, they had had very little surcharge ; but they had heard what had been going on in Bir mingham ; and he could speak o f th e N ort h o f England, where there certainly had been a good deal of surcharge. In some part of England parties who had been surcharged had been subject to insults which were becoming in no men, much less public Commissioners. He knew a case himself, in which a surgeon was surcharged, and had to go before the Corn. missioners to be examined, when such questions as the following were put to him :—" How much profit do 'all get from Blue stone? We understand you keep two gigs?—does your wife sometimes use one of them? You keep two horses too, and sometimes ride them with the saddle ?—does your wife some times 113 C one of them?" Then again a hair-dresser had to go before the Commissioners.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the hair 'dr e sser had a vote. Well, he went before the body of Commissioners, and was examined some thing in this style :—" You have a room ? What use do you make of it ?--I use it for the purposes of n.y busine.s. How many people's hair do you cut in the course ' of do you charge e ot the year?—So . many ladies, and so many gentlemen. NI Then yon get tenpence at least of them ?—Perhaps a shilling. 011ie room sometimes for domeitie profit? purposesD??, you not u sa c s yu t o h e r tof questioning to which these people were subjectedcs. But before they could make the appeal, they were called upon to state their profit'', whether they had mo re places of business than one, and bether they had mer partners than one , and how man y . \N hat was the amount of capital e mployed in each house, distinguishieg the amount which belonged to each partner, arid detailing the anew.' in terest and the amount of profit due to each. He knew a g entleman who was surcharged 5,00 j. ; notwithstanding he had honestly made a return of the amount of his profits. lie consulted a Member of that House on the subject, but nothing could be dote for him, and he was tald that he would have to take his ! - .aoks before the Commissioners. lie referred, how ever, paying the fine to disclosing she secrets of his trade. Now he thought this was a grievance which lion. Gentlemen did not well understand in that, House, or they would not have the Right Hon. Baronet at the heed of her Majesty's Govern ment makinfy, merry on this subject, and asking whether the people would not be so enamoured of this tax as to require its continuance for a further length of time.—(Laughter and sheers.) Ile wished as a free trader on that occasion to state that as far as the Right Hon. Baronet's measures of this ses sion went, he totally repudiated them as far as the free traders were concerned. They were merely brought forward to keep up the dviiiiiun out of doors, that they were free- w % 1 ....—...—„, ............ t7t traders on the Ministerial side of the Hou e, and ,tb 43 ekie---,\ enable them to continue the existence o f moiiitspneyesl, What did Mr. Macgregor say of the amount of revenu e they"' ''''.-e'se",),"'_.,\ might obtain from sugar? Since Friday last, he (Mr. C o b. eset - e4:l-'e e e. - h‘ ....)\\ den) had asked two gentlemen more likely to be acquaintedk; f . *I . S:- .. 1 j ,.._ with the subject than any men in London. He bad asked, ''' - neseieesj4 them this question. "If you wished to get the largest amount' ee s se, of revenue from sugar, giving sugar at the same price as the . . e eel - Government intend the people to have it, how much revenue l ag would you get, and still give the sugar at that price ?" '- ..Sis AS millions sterling," was the answer. He believed that if they were to put a duty on all foreign and colonial sugar of 235. per cwt. they would get more than six millions, and the people would get their sugar at the same price as under the proposed law, in addition to which they would be opening a channel for increased trade. A good deal had been said out of compli ment to the Right Hon. Gentleman from his measures having a tendency towards free trade. He (Mr. Cobden) could not see the wisdom of the Right Hon. Baronet's policy since he had been in power, for instead of opening new markets, he had shut up two of the greatest markets of the world—North and South America. The one by imposing a duty on corn, ab solutely prohibiting and shutting them out by an unstatesman like sche me i n th e mar k ets of Brazil. How a Government could have the courage under such circumstances to put them selves forward as free traders passed his imagination altogether. Lord J. RUSSELL said he wished to say a few words to justify his own vote on this question, especially as the Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to en observation which he had made in one of the debates which had taken place on this sub ject. This tax might be imposed on various occasions, and for various reasons. One case was exigency of war, when the country was in great danger. Now he ( Lord J. Russell) readily admitted that that was a fair occasion for the imposi tion of this tax; and he conceived that that was a fair reason for not attempting any modification in it. Ho thought it rea sonable to say to the farmer, " You must supply your horsei for the army, because that is the way the demands of the army are supplied throughout the country." Another mode of using the income-tax was that which the Right Hon. Gentle man had proposed in ISI2, when he said, " There are taxes which press very much on the industry of the country, that we hope by imposing an income-tax for three years the in dustry of the country will be so far recovered that the revenue will be equal to what it has been in any former year." But neither of these modes was that upon which the income-tax was now proposed. The ground now taken of imposing the tax was the commutation of other taxes. He (Lord J. Rug. sell) thought they were bound to consider whether this tax was as just, as equal, and as little vexatious as they could me ke it. They could no longer say that they had a great public exigency ; they could no longer say t' at they were imposing it only far a short time, and that all the inconveniences would depart with the tax itself. They were imposing it on grounds which made it almost impcesible for them to take it off at the end of three years, and on grounds upon which it must be renewed again and again. He (Lord John Russell) thought especially, after hearing the statements of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport—those forcible state ments of the inequality of the tax—that it would be but fair for that House, before they finally agreed upon it, to examine into all the conditions of the tax, and attempt to remove some of those objections which were applicable to it in its present state. He could not understand for a moment the objections of his Hon. Friend the Member fur Kendall, who said that when the income-tax ceased the inequality of the tax also ceased. Why if a man who obtained his income from a pro fession were to be completely paralysed by disease, no doubt his source of income would fail, and there would be no income tax; but they had already received the tax from him at the same rate as that from a person who had an estate from which he would receive his income although he might be in such a state of health as not to be able to leave his bedroom. It was impossible by any sophistry to show that there was equality in that mode of using the tax. But then the Hon. Member for Montrose, to his great surprise, gave a most Curious reason why they should not enter into this investiga tion. The Prime Minister had been asked if he would cone sent to any modification of this tax. The Hon. Gentleman thought that great modifications were required, but as the Right Hon. Gentleman would not make those modifications, it was, he said, no use bothering him any more.—(Laughter.) lie (Lord J. Russell) hod heard the Right lion. Gentleman described, on the other side of the House, as the Petruchio of Liberalism, and if that were so, he thought the Honourable Member for Montrose might be looked upon as the Katharine —( Laughter) —certainly the Hon. Member had been com pletely tamed by the discipline which hod been used. He (Lord John Russell) agreed very much with the Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stockport, in what he had said with re spect to free trade, and, admitting the figures that had been used the other night, he could not but say that, looking to all the benefits which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give to the public on the imposition of the income-tax, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that this tax might have been imposed with less severity on precarious incomes, if the tax paid to the West Indian proprietors had been diminished. The Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stockport had said that 6,000,000/. might be obtained for the revenue from sugar, and the price not raised beyond that which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to give it. Now they had given 750,000/. a-year, in per petuity to the West India proprietors by giving them 20,000,0001., and if they gave this country, 1,000,0001., they would still have 5,000,000/. out of the present tax on sugar, without making the sacrifice of 1,300,000/., which, it was acknowledged, would not benefit the people, in order to give 2,000,0001. of benefit to the West India planters. Those who had suffered from the income-tax must justly com plain of it as a grievance, when monopoly and restriction were kept up. He was perfectly satisfied that it was in the power of the Right lion. Baronet, if he chose, to deal with those great articles of timber, sugar, and corn, to relieve the publie, and to give a still greater impetus and vigour to com merce, and to make a just and fair modification of the tax. lie was not at all insensible to the benefits that would be de rived from the abolition of the duties on 434) articles. He re gretted, however, that the great articles which constituted the food of the people had not been dealt with. The Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had referred to Mr. Deacon Hums. He (Lord John Russell) thought that Mr. Deacon Hume had stated that there were two modes of proceeding with regard to restrictions on commerce, The mode was that which had been mentioned by the Honourable Gentleman, the Member for Kendal, and the other was with regard to those great articles to which he (Lord John Russell) had alluded. He thought the first mode of proceeding for a Minister to take would be to establish a free trade in these articles. That might be the course the light lion. Gentleman intended to pursue.-- (Laughter.) Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montrose was in the secret.—(Renewed laughter.) But he (Lord John Russell) thought that if that was to be the course, the Right lion. Baronet had better declare it, and get rid of the diffi culty at one e For his ( Lord J. Russell's) own part, on the ground the Right Hon. Gentleman himself had stated more than once, he was ready to say that he would give his vote for the property and income-tax for three years, seeing that great benefits would be derived front taking off duties which were very oppressive to trade ,• but in voting for it on this ground, he, at the same time, thought they ought to consider what modifications could be made, and even if those modifica tions should lead to a reduction of the amount of the duty, if they teok off one million of the five, there would be ample compensation for adopting the principles of free trade, while it would place the trade of the country on a sound foundation. Mr. VILLIERS did not think the lion. Member for Lis keard would take the advice of the Hon. Member for Pon- tefract, and withdraw his motion. He (Mr. Villiers) fully anticipated that the income-tax would be continued, and for that reason he thought they were bound to see that the tax was made as little odious as possible.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the best recommendation of this tax was, that it was a direct one. He thought that a direct tax was far better than an indirect one, as it interfered less with trade, and less with that activity and enterprise which were the means of accumulating wealth. Nothing could be sounder than the opinion which prevailed out of doors, throughout the country, on the subject of taxation. The people were not at all op posed to taxation that was necessary. They did not wish to repudiate liabiliity. All they required was, that the taxes that were imposed should be just.—( Hear.) But the people wanted to be persuaded that the revenue thus obtained trom the income-tax was properly applied ; he did not think this was shown, he did not think this was the case. The recent discussion on the sugar duties was calculated to create great dissatisfaction. It was calculated to show that the people were required to submit to en odious impost, to a tax generally disliked, without having any advantage from it. Were it pro perly applied to a reduction of duties which interfered with manufactures and commerce, he did not believe it would cause any dissatisfaction. This was not the ground at present. It had been pretty clearly established that the tax was imposed now, because they had to expect a recurrence of those periods, of which the depression was the cause of its being first im posed. There was not the slightest doubt or question, in the mind of any person, that the cause of the decline of the reve nue, during the two or three years before the present Govern ment came into power, was occasioned by bad harvests and the corn-laws. That was a settled conviction in the public mind, and he did not know that a greater fraud or unposition had ever been attempted to be palmed upon the people, than to make them believe it was the existence of the late Government, and on account of the policy it pursued, that the revenue had fallen off, and that because the present Gentle men had succeeded to power, the revenue had been recovered. The revenue declined at that time in consequence of the defi ciency of food and higher prices; and it recovered simply in consequence of good harvests, which meant abundance, which meant cheapness, which meant the power on the part of the people of consuming the articles that were taxed.—(Hear.) This could not be repeated too often ; it must be impressed on the Gentlemen in that corner of the House, they must be told of it every week of the session, they must be constantly re minded that they were the real causes of this additional tax ation. This was what the people did not like ; for this tax was first imposed in addition to all others from a deficiency caused by the corn-laws and bad harvests. Those Gentlemen, there fore, who supported the corn-laws, were strictly responsible for the continuance of this tax. This would, perhaps, be proved in 1848, when they should probably have had another set of bad harvests, when it would be necessary to continue it ; and these Gentlemen would have to answer to the country for that continuance. His lion. Friend the Member for Stockport had alluded to the evidence of Mr. Deacon Hume and Mr. Macgregor before the Import Duties Committee ; According to this evidence, if they did not recover the revenue by reducing their expenditure, they must do it by giving greater power to the people of consuming taxed articles. if their Customs and Excise were to produce 75 per cent. of the revenue, they must increase the consuming power of the people, and make articles more cheap and accessible to them. should not trouble the House with many figures on this point—. ( Hear hear)—but he would cite a few in order to illustrate the evidence given by these gentlemen, and of the justice of the view of what was really the cause of the deficiency of the revenue when the harvests were bad, and of what had really been the cause of the improvement in it since the harvests had been good. The net produce of the Customs and Excise in 1836 was 36,392,000/. ; in 1840 the net rev enue pro d uced from these sources was 35,536,4691. ; there was a reduction of upwards of one million. And what occurred between the years 1836 and 1840? There were 1,400,000 added to the numbers of the people, and 5 per cent. additional placed on the Customs and Excise duties ; and yet there was a falling off of a million in the revenue. Now, he would just ask the atten tion of the House to the difference in the amount paid by the people for food at these periods. In the three years, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the cost of the wheat consumed by the people vas 107,135,000/. In the three years, 1837, 1838, and 1839, the wheat consumed by the people coat 152,506,465/. In those three years fifty-two nithons more were paid by the people for the cecessaries of life than there had been dining the three preceding years when the harvests were good. They had heard also what was the correlenaling falling off in that time of that portion of the revenue that formed 75 per cent. of the whole amount. Would any one doubt, after the experience not only of these but of other s eais, that whenever food was dear the revenue fell off ? II sd not the people a right to ask why they were taxed in this extraordinary way on the first necessary of life, and then re quired to pay a rnoit offensive impost to make up the deficiency in the revenue caused by it ? He could understand the inten tion to keep up the protective system if the Hon. Member for Somersetshire or Dorsetshire were in power, but after the speech they had heard that evening from the Hight lion. Gentleman, he could not understand his persevering in the system. That speech was a perfect free trade argument, as good a free trade speech as those his lionceirable Fr iends were accustomed to address to public meetings, arid he could scarcely te!ieve his ears h when he heard the Right lion. Gent l e man ask whata had e o r w , e v d o that ld all r the fears e of h those ahoht who n . Ife thought he Wag every mos i d n e c t l h ; ed caseth the f E w n g i l : t h o a u g n a d r di o s i e s h ' i of the duty wefe s