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

1C" .....- annual) to 700,000/? There was another proposal put forward by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely , a p ro p osal fora repeal of the malt-tax, which would entail a loss to the revenue of not less than 5,000,000/. The Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) bad told him that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was acting unjustly in proposing to reduce taxes which were Paid by the consumer, and yet the Hon. Gentleman and the great party with which he was connected wished for the repeal of a duty paid by the consumer, and under which a sum of not less than 5,000,000 1 . was annually raised. Did Hon. Geutlemen opposite believe that if' that proposal were carried it would be possible to repeal the income-tax?—(Hear, hear.) His belief was, that if taxes on consumption were judiciously reduced, the re venue derived from them would revive, and that if the national credit were to be staked on our existing taxa tion, it was wise to remove from that taxation its most objectionable features; for the more popular they made their taxes, the more certain it was that they would be table to raise them.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to ask Honourable Gentleman opposite which tax was the more likely to be permanent—the window-tax, with all its sins cm its head, or the house-tax, to which no objection had as yet been stated ? He asked whether it Was likely that the duty on coffee could be made more Productive by reducing it to such an amount as would Prevent, ho hoped, that adulteration of the article Which had recently taken place, or by leaving it at its Present amount, under which the consumption had fallen ( Ito the extent of 10,000,000 lbs. or 12,000,000 lbs. Within the last few years ? lie felt perfectly convinced that, und e r the reduction of duty which he proposed, they would have a larger amount o f coffee introduced 'de this country, and a consequent improvement of the revenue, so that the course that he was taking was atrial), in accordance with that which Parliament had holate years pursued. He had. stated the other night w rapidly the revenue had risen und er the p ressure f)„ the income-tax, and that after t he re p eal of ~E ,0 00,000/. of taxes the ordinary s o urces of revenue had realised their usual amount between the year 1844 S ad the year 1850. Was not that likely to happen again? and had not the Right Hon. Gentleman that 6 , e / Ping given them some reas on to believe that that might occur, even to an extent beyond wha t he (the (Chancellor of the Exchequer) anticipated ? lie ad mitted that the revenue of the last quarter l a' better than any estimate which had be e n furnished to him by the officers of his depart ;tent had led him to suppose, and that every material branch of the revenue for the quarter showed a "eided improvement in the condition of the people. To What was that improvement owing? Ile believed that it Was owing to a wise legislation, by which the springs of dustry had been relieved; and let it be remem b e red that that had happened under the imposition of the income 41L/re He said that it would he wise on their parts to continue that tax until they should have removed or re duced other taxes of a more objectionable character; and that was the course which he proposed they should then pursue . Let them look at what happ ened in the e s e of sugar. The consumption of sug ar had been about 00,000 cwts. in the year 1844, and it had been about 600 0,000 cwts. last year. And was it no benefit to the great body of the people of this country that that in crease of 50 per cent. in the consumption should have ta ken place? Again, the late Sir Robert Peel had affected a considerable reduction in the duty on foreign spirits; and yet, three years after that reduction, the revenue derived from that source had be- Seine as great as ever, while the consumption of Bri tish and colonial spirits had increased. Let them look at the excise revenue, which was usually taken as the peat test of the condition of the people. During the st ten years the excise duties had been reduced by an tttnotint of 1,500,0001, and yet the Excise revenue was higher at present than it had been at the commence ment of that period. On the sth of April last the i ncrease in the excise revenue had amounted to about 335 ,0004 and to that might be added the whole amount of the brick duty, which h year , ad not been paid last but which had been paid in the year preced in g. With the addition of th e amount of the brick duty there would have been an increase in the excise duty last year to the extent of not less than 835 000/. He had already stated that he did not expect that duty would be so large in the present year, because it was a bad one for malting Purposes. He had quoted those cases in order to show the effect of the commercial legislation they had of late years adopted. Be would ask wh ether it was not likel y the same results would follow from the proposals which ter Majesty' s G ove rnment then submitted to the Hou s e? ere not the reductions which they proposed of the sane character asthose which had already been attended 'with so much success? Tee proposed reductions in the duties on coffee and timber were precisely similar; and The substitution of a moderate house-tax for the present window-tax would tend materially to promote that Which had been the main object in all their recent legis lation—the improvement of the moral and material con dition of the great mass of the people; while no mea sure could afford such wide advantage from one end of The country to the other. Some complaints had been made that he had yielded to the taunts which had been directed against the inadequacy of his former pro posals for the relief of the agricultural interest, and some persons seemed to think that he had given up the remis sion of the duty on seeds and the transfer of a portion of the charges for lunatic asylums to the Consolidated Fund, in consequence of some sneers which had been directed against these proposals. But he had b een to ld by some Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the reduction of the duty on seeds would be a hardship and not a benefit to the agricultur a l i n t eres t. With r ega rd to th e p ro p osa l for transferring a portion of the expenses of lunatic asylums to th e C onso lid a t e d F u nd, he should observe Fiat if it were to be taken in the sense in which it had been taken by th e Hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) on Friday last he should regard it as a very unjust and improper measure. If it Were to be taken as the first step towards trans ferring the whole maintenance of the poor of this coun try to the public revenue, be could only say that he Would conceive nothing more fatal than such a step to the prosperity, and even to the very existence, of the B ritish empir e . B u t he would venture to say that any c ountry gentleman who might compare the amount of ,! refit h e wou ld d er i ve f rom the proposed change in the window -tax, with the amount of benefit he would derive from a transfer to the Consolidated Fund of a p o rtion of the expenses for lunatic asylums, would find that he would have reason to rejoice at the change. The hadHonourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) ' l4 d told t h em t h at h e wou ld not, upon that occasion, e nter into any cons id er ation of the question of protection or mo ment o f free tr a d e , and that the House had at that nothing • to to do with that question. But it appeared ye him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was a h,,, r Y important int for the House to consider, whether, oe j e. 4 l 3 ealing heircome-tax, they would not render ne tfarY the imposition of a duty on corn, such as was °Posed by Lord Stanley and his party.—(Hear.) dish Stanley had certainly announced that it was his d : 11 1 to impose such a duty; and it would be strange in deed if the Noble Lord had not consulted the chief determined of his party upon such a point before he had l i e :ttinined on making that announcement of his policy. th t he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should say, eo a . , if the Right Hon. Gentleman did not approve of of Et course he would be gladly received in the ranks that free-trade party, which already included, accord erg to the admission of Lord Stanley, every public man je o fficial experience, with the single exception of thep g.ht lion. Gentleman. Now, with respect to the im oesltion of a duty upon corn, he should say there was no conceivable measure so objectionable in his eyes. It the all produce deep and universal dissatis%icti ne among e,:great mass of the people of this country; and he con iinsed that he should rather witness any amount of fal cot°l rent than such an evil as that. He po_seidered that the reductions of taxation he had pro of ' t , (l were of primary importance; but if the proposal e , tr ue Right Hon. Gentleman were adopted, these mea thPs Would be impossible, while it would be found that ea ; _!:11_ e sno o f the Right li on. G ent l man cou ld not be 1 . beneficially into operation. If people, then , ~o u id' o r di scontented in a case where they derived a benefit , term they be better pleased when they derived h • ras at all?—(Hear, hear.) If he did, he would find i g h e t if greatly mistaken. If the proposal of the W ould Honourable Gentleman wt re adopted there ti e _ ean end of that relief on articles of consump. yhgivinendinf that relief which he proposed to grant the lahoug acilities for improving the dwellings of rin people in the country, and an end of every im p r ovement setun in that direction in which they had so sue- Whi ch . 3: proceeded for so many years, the results of el„ " - teY Were now enjoying in that general prospe lie and peace which tie was so happy to hear the Right GGentleman admit; and it was his belief that if th e i t .'uheion of that evenin should end in favour of the iglat Gentleman's g proposition, it would debar the (3 rer is ntnent from carrying out their propositions, which, int e ; B 9inion, were best calculated to promote the true toe tercets of this country, and especially that portion of 1/4Pare o ltiterests which they were more particularly bound p 'act —(Heer, hear.) 11:- 1 . 1 l i RINSEP said the patty to which the Right io,u• Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer be. th u_ged had found themselves in a state of difficulty which I_rtnetttened the dissolution of the Governeaent on a itt're_er occasion when there was a deficiency, and wore offsame difficulty now that they had a surplus. The of A T:I en both occasions was the same—namely, a want e h i. ";: t d principles, which made the Government like a eollor 891 t without compass. In February the Chan -2 50 ,, of the Exchequer had stated the surplus at and now stated it at 1,89 0 000 /. The ln CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, IT Ord er to prevent the Honourable Member from go. m g isi b r l . u v nd ß e s _r_ing on, he would repeat what he_ had stated. T he ca INSEP said he had made no blunder. Pard o ANOELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged teat on for the expression which had escaped him uuin peao n e allY, but thought it better to interpose for the pur ttnn_oat preventing the Honorable Member from arguing titc,u hen erroneous assumption. What he had stated was, estimated the surplus for the year ending April, g2 l eat 2 ,500,0004 and that next year it would probe -1 892,000/. ti e at • PRINSEP thanked the Right Honourable Gen -14.1)2_111e for his explanation, but if he had allowed him to ti ,nt e ti r r on, he would have found that he had thoroughly i o a tiou st r o a o b d ie the matter from first to last. The Right Gentleman had stated the surplus in Feb prtl,TharYpoart ;4,500,0004 and now he stated the probable sur -4,i,1',.. he current year at 1,892,000 L, and if to this was f o r t u, the amount to be paid over to the Commissioners w titaci s te_R_ , edu . ction of the National Debt, 630,0004 it hoe. seams it about 2,500,0001. Then there was the ..,,.Ite: lnr o vi t ti tu be kept back to meet the expenses of the r . and the claim of the East India Company tht Lgn o with regard to the latter, it certainly was no oaf c yesterday, but one which had been under the T he l, f u.. the Right Hon, Gentleman for eight years. part the Member for Montrose objected to apply any ta w _ surplus to the payment of the debt, and he le fe t ‘, e force in his objection. It was nothing more, h e _' 4 than maki ng an investment at 3 per cent , and the money ld not see the wisdom of taking out of TIIE SUN, the pockets of an impoverished people for such a pur pose. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman shown debts in volving the payment of a higher interest, he would have agreed to the appropriation of a milion oven, or more, but when he purchased at 97, which was the price of the day, the expediency of the outlay might very fairly be questioned. The Right Hon, Gentleman had reminded them that within the last 20 years, 20,000,0001. had been added to the capital of the debt; a great calamity , no doubt, in a time - of peace, but the Right Hon. Gentleman omitted to point out that during the same interval a very large reduction had also been made in the interest, which more than covered the addition. The last lean raised by the Right Hon Gentleman was for Ireland, and that was raised at 87, about five years ago. Surely it could not be good policy to borrow at 8 per cent. and after five years to pay such a price as 97. It was, in fact, paying upwards of 6 per cent. for their money. Besides, by pur chasing in this stock they would force up the price, which, however popular it might be in the City and amongst the holders of the stock itself, would confer no ad vantage on the pnblie. Ho doubted, also, whether the Government would thereby gain any facility in future financial operations, because long before the Chan cellor of the Exchequer came to bargain an effect would be produced on the funds, as in the case of the Irieh loan. In his speech on Friday the Right Hon. Gentle man declared the principle on which his measures were based to be to diminish the burden of taxation which pressed on the labouring classes, and to relieve the in dustry of the country. The principle was good, but when the measures of the Right Hon. Gentleman were tested by it they would not bear investigation.—(Hear, hear.) The alteration in the window duties was a very proper one, but would not relieve one single labourer or working man.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed a reduction iu the coffee duties, and with respect to this part of his policy he hoped to have another opportunity of making a few observations; but he could not help pro testing against the precipitation with which he proposed to strike off the differential duty on foreign coffee at once, without notice or warning. But were the masses of the people consumers of coffee?—(Cries of "Yes.") No; they consumed chicory, and he did not deny that the reduction of the duty might perhaps cause genuine coffee to be mixed with it to a certain extent. The reduction of the timber duties might benefit those engaged in building houses and ships, but were these the masses? He was, therefore, justified in charging the Government with want of principle in their financial measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the advocate of direct as opposed to indirect taxation. Taxes were a part of a man's expenditure which regulated the rest, and he circumscribed his comforts and enjoyments according to the amount which he was obliged to con tribute under this head. If the revenue were raised by indirect taxation, and every article could be taxed, every man according to his expenditure would pay alike. But it was impossible to tax every commodity which entered into consumption, and certain articles were therefore selected, such as tea, tobacco, malt, sugar, and various other articles, and those entered largely into the con sumption of the lower orders, and they therefore paid more than they ought. This was a class which deserved protection, and the only way to give it was to put a tax on the price of the articles they produced, thus throw ing on the entire community that which this class bad been compelled to pay in advance.—(Hear.) But if by financial legislation it was so contrived that they could not thus indemnify themselves, they would be compelled to work and labour at the rate of the cheapest labour with which they were obliged to compete, and would be, moreover, compelled to pay the whole of the tax ation out of those reduced wages.—(Hear, hear.) The policy of tho party to which he (Jr. Priusep) belonged sought to enable these classes to support the taxation imposed upon them. The question at every election had been, and the question at the general elec tion would be, whether they should enable the producing labourer of this country to add the taxation he paid to the price of the article he produced, or leave him to the mercy of a competition with the foreigner who produced under different circumstances.—(Bear.) That was tho true issue, though the Right Hon. Gentleman thought p•oper to treat it as a question of a ss. duty on corn. What was the policy which the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute? He asked them to continue the income-tax to avoid the necessity of such a taxation by means of customs duties as would alone enable the la bourer to relieve himself from the burdens to which he was subject. But the Right Hon. Gentleman would tell i them that f they allowed the taxation to be added to the price they would throw the burden on the entire popu lation, and sacrifice the good of the whole community for the advantage of the few. But the fallacy of that was apparent. Every one who was a producer depended on the price of the particular commodity on which he was employed for his profits or his wages. Upon that price, therefore, whether high or low, he depended for his living. All the producing classes were in this predicament, and if you told a man belonging to those classes cheapness will be a benefit to you, among the rest he would reply, " I must sell before I can buy." (Hear, hear.) The best of taxes was a tax on ex penditure, whereas the income-tax included in its opera tion the profits which a man made in trade, and what he had laid by also, and proceeded somewhat on the prin ciple of the Chinese Government with respect to gamb hug houses, where 10 per cent. was taken from every man's winnings. But if the objection was great to tax ing the rent ,if the landlord and interest derived from the funds, the objection was much stronger against the following schedule, under which the tenant farmer was made to pay on the amount of rent without reference to his actual profits.—(Hear, hear.) The case of the pro fessional man also, who paid on his entire income, was hard, though he thought that if a professional man chose to keep up the style of the nobleman he ought to pay in proportion. He ought to pay on his expendi ture, but ought not to be compelled to pay on that which he had laid by for his family. The con trary principle was nearly allied to commuism. The Right Honourable Gentleman had very properly commuted the window tax for a tax on houses; but if he had commuted it fairly, he would have obtained the same amount, and the total amount of the surplus might have been applied to any other object, for instance, to the relief of one-third of the income-tax. To that tax he objected because its continuance was justified upon grounds which no longer existed. With respect to coffee, as he had observed, he protested against bringing Cey lon and other colonies in which coffee was cultivated into competition with Java and other foreign countries, fur, as it took 10 years to bring coffee plantations to maturity, the proprietors were at all events entitled to have the duty lowered by degrees, as in the case of sugar. As to timber, the Right Hon. Gentleman forgot that the supply could not be increased ad libitum, but must be the work of many years, and the lowering of the duty would only serve to put more money into the pockets of the Baltic proprietors, on whose will the supply must depend. Objecting altogether, therefore, to the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, ho should give his cordial support to the motion of the Right Hon Member for Stainferl—(Hear.) Mr. F. PEEL said he was quite conscious that there were a great number of Members in that House with whose sentiments upon a question like the present it was much more important for the House to be acquainted than with his own; but as the Right Hon. Member for Stamford bad stated that they had to make their option between his plan and the plan of the Government; and as the conclusion t which he had brought his mind, after giving the subject the best consideration of which he was capable, obliged him to dissent from the amend ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman, while, at the same time he was far from being able to express an ucqualfied approval of the financial policy of her Majesty's Go vernment, he hoped he might be permitted to state very shortly the grounds upon which he rested his conclusions, and the vote which he was about to give. Under what circumstances was it that the proposition for the renewal of the income-tax was brought before them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House on Friday night that he wished to abide by the estimates which he had made on the first financial statement, and it would be in the recollection of the House that the Right Honourable Gentleman estimated the pro bable income of the then ensuing and now curre-at year, ending the sth April, 1852, speaking in round numbers, setting aside altogether the income-tax, at 46,575,0004 and the expenditure within the same period at about 50 250,0001., leaving therefore a standing deficit of about 3,500,0001. True, this deficit underwent consi derable diminution in the course of the present year, because the Government were able to take credit for half a year of income-tax and half a year's produce of stamp duties in Ireland, and these together woli!d have the effect of reducing the deficit in the course of the present year to about 847,0001., and it was for the purpose of repairing this deficit, and a deficit of 3,500,0001. in future years, that the Right Hon. Gentleman invited the House to consent to the re-imposition of the income-tax for a further period of three years. He was favourable to the principle of an , income tax.—(Hear.) He was favourable to it because it combined a system of direct with indirect taxation, which afforded the means of snaking the wealthier classes contribute in proportion to their means to the revenue required for defraying the public expen diture. He did nut think that the proportion between direct and indirect taxation was disturbed by the impo sition of an income-tax, He was quite aware that pro perty so called was required to bear a very con,iderable imposition, in the shape of assessed taxes, of the local taxation of the country. On the other side of the ac count no man could be more sensible than he was of the immense advantage which the labouring classes of the country had derived from the recent modifications in the fiscal, financial, and commercial system.—(Hear, hear.) No man was more deeply impressed with or more ready to avow the immense impetus given to the manufacturing industry and commercial enterprise of the country by taking off the duties that weighed with un due severity upon the springs of industry, as they were called, and the sources of employment. What had been the magnitude and extent of the changes in the course of nine years? Between 1842 and the close of 1850 they had remitted taxes upon their linen manufactures, upon the raw material of manufactures, and upon the food of the people, to no lees an extent than 10i millions sterling. Hon. Gentlemen could see that for themselves in the re turns moved fur by his Hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Well, had that great reduction of taxation b ee n attended with any corresponding diminution of produce in the great branches of revenue out of which those duties, supposing they had remained, would have been paid? So far from the produce of the Customs and Excise, out of which they were paid, being reduced, they were now as productive in 1851 as they were in 1842, before those great changes were commenced. In 1842 the produce of the Customs and Excise was 36,140,000/ e in 1849 it was 37,271,000/., and in 1850 the gross produce, not deducting those char g e s which were incurred by the collection in its way to the re venue, was 37,365,0001., so that so far from there being a reduction to the extent of 10,500,0001., as might have been expected, the produce had increased nearly 1,200,000/.—(elear, hear.) He would say that a simple fact of that kind spoke language more of forcibly than any that could flow from the most gifted lips—it told of the i n crease of employment and of industry; the Increased LONDON, TUESDAY amount of wages at the disposition of the working olassss; and it told also of the increased command which they had acquired over the comforts, the conveniences, and the necessaries of life.—(llear, hear.) But there was also another test—they were able to ascertain ac curately the increased and increasing amount of e thseine dustry and labour of the country that had been eseOndeel iu the production of articles intended f o r the tv . re!gn consumer. What was the case eiti;tli foreign trade? From 1835 to .1;142 it' bad.' ire one nearly stationary. The average online tof the s decla'red. value of their exports was about . 4500,000/. sterling. In 1842 commenced the great change in their commer cial legislation, and from that period down to the pre sent thee there had been a rapid and progressive increase in the declared value of the foreign trade. In 1843 it was 52,250,000 L; in 1547, it was 58,750,000/.; in 1849, it was 63,500,000/4 and in the year just concluded, 1850, it exceeded 71,000,000/. sterling.—(Hear, hear.) But while he made all these concessions he was anxious the House should bear in wind that they had still an enormous revenue from indirect taxation, and that which was indirect, to be productive; must be laid upon the chief articles of the subsistence of the people. Take, for instance, the Customs revenue. The produce of that was 22,000,0001. sterling, and the House should be aware that of that large sum no less an amount than 20,000,000/., or 10.11ths, was the produce of the duties levied upon seven articles, which were articles of subsistence of the great mass of the people. If they took tea, coffee, or spirits (he meant foreign and colonial rum and brandy), wine, tobacco,' and corn—for although the duty on corn was only a nominal one of one shilling, yet such was the demand and such the consumption, that it produced an appreciable amount to the public revenue —these seven articles yielded 20,000,000 L out of the 22,000,0001. of Customs revenue. He did not know how many articles there were in the tariff—he dared to say some hundreds, but all of them put together produced hardly more than the cost of collection. So it would al ways be; and if they placed back those 450 articles that had iron struck out by the Act of 1845 they would hardly pay the cost of colleetion. What was the infer ence he drew from that? If they were to raise five mil lions additional taxation, and not raise it by means of a direct tax, but by an indirect one, they must impose that indirect tax upon one or more of the prime articles of subsistence of the people—they must reverse the prin ciple ef their recent commercial legislation, and re vert to that system of protection which for so long a time they had permitted to obstruct and retard the growth, and progress, and development of the resources of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let the advantage of the income-tax be what it might. the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Stamford would prevent their taking it into consideration at all; be would stop them on the threshold, and why? Because, he said, the faith of Parliament was pledged on the subject—that Parlia ment had given its good faith to discontinue the income tax after the expiration of a limited period. Granted. True, the Right Hon. Gentleman was willing to allow them just as much of the income-tax as would bring the income level with the expenditure; but that he could not do without doing violence to his principle, which went to the extent that the duties levied under the in come-tax were granted and renewed for temporary pur poses and for a limited period, and that Parliament was bound to abide by its declared intention to discontinue the income-tax. Now he must enter a preliminary ob jection against the statement that Parliament could enter into any compact with the people, fettering the discre tion of some future Parliament on the subject of finance, and binding it not to entertain any proposition for rais ing any portion of the public revenue in a manner which was most in harmony with the real interests of the country, and, if necessary, by means of an income tax. A similar argument was urged in 1842 against the imposition of the income-tax at all. It was said that the income-tax by common un derstanding vies reserved for the great emer gency of war—that it was a proposition never heard of, entertained, or conceded in time of peace, and should be reserved for those great occasions when the relations of this country with foreign nations were either altogether broken off or temporarily suspended. And the answer made to that argument in support of the Right Hon. Gentleman's resolution was that Parliament could judge of the exigency for itself—if it thought it necessary, in order to maintain the public credit of the country, and to keep up the establishments in a proper state of effi ciency, that it should be imposed. Do not let Parlia ment be deterred from acting up to its duty by the fallacious, delusive argument of a compact entered into for fettering its discretion and binding its freedom of action.—(Hear, hear.) He was not at all prepared to admit the facts involved in the resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman, still more to admit the inferences he drew from theta. The Right Hon. Gentleman cited ex tracts from individual Members, but he would say they were far from carrying out the conclusions to which he wished to arrive. He (Mr. Peel) thought, when he spoke of the declared intentions:of Parliament, that ho would have been able to point out some act which would speak in an effective manner the sense of the Legislature. He wondered he did not refer to the proceedings in the Parliament of 1816; in that year Lord Bexley then Mr. Vausittart, us Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward a proposition for imposing the income tax. That proposition excited great opposition, and the chief ground was the common understanding of the country that the income-tax should not be renewed after the expiration of the war and the conclusion of a treaty of peace. The opposition brought forward a number of speeches from individual members of Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to be bound by them, and showed that Pitt, Addington, and Grenville had ,mortgaged the produce of these duties for several years after the peace, for the purpose of repaying loans borrowed during the war. The opposition was trium phant; the income-tax was rejected, and why? Because the opposition was able to point to a section in the Act of 1803, which provided that the income-tax was to be continued so long as the war lasted, and was not to be afterwards renewed. The Right Honourable Gentle man brought nothing of the kind forward, and he also disputed, as he had said, the inference he drew from his facts. He said the tax had reference to a temporary emergency, the expense of the China war and the remedying some of the financial blunders of the Ad ministration that retired in 1841. But he did not say that these were the grounds on which the Govern ment themselves rested the imposition of the income-tax, and he (Mr. Peel) could confidently state that the real financial,policy of the Government of 1841, as developed in 1845, was, that by means of an income-tax the Go vernment might be enabled to take off taxes infinitely more oppressive, burdensome, and vexatious, than the income-tax. The principle of the financial policy of the Government was, that by means of the income-tax they might effect great reforms in the financial and commer cial policy of the country. The first leading principle was to take off the duty on the food of the people, and then the duties on the importation of the raw materials of their manufactures—these principles were acted upon with great vigour and great aptitude of design, but he did not say that the policy was brought to a completion; they took off the duty on sheep and cotton-wool on the express ground that they formed the material of the chief staple manufactures, but he could not say the policy was completed while there remained a heavy protective diffe rential duty, amounting to sd. per cubic toot, on timber, which was one of the materials of their manufactures. He could not say that the policy was complete which took off the duty on sugar on the ground that it entered into the subsistence of the mass of the people, while there still remained the heavy duty of 2s. 2id. per pound on tea, amounting to 200, 300, or 400 per cent. on the cheaper sorts, which were those consumed by the lower class. — (Hear, hear.) Still less would he say that the policy was complete which took off the excise duty on glass, and by the removal of excise restrictions gave a rapid de velopment to that manufacture, while there remained a duty, characterised by Adam Smith as one of the four necessaries of life, taxed in his time by the British Go vernment, a most important article which entered into a great variety of manufactures—he meant soap.—(Hear, hear.) If these were the temporary exigencies to which the Right Honourable Gentleman referred, he could not say that they had passed away, and he could not vote for the resolution on such grounds. He should give his vote in favour of the renewal of the income-tax to enable the Government to carry out these reforms to completion. That led him to consider what were the inducements held out by the Government to obtain the consent of the House to the imposition of the income-tax. They were of a threefold character—they want to repair a deficit, to retain a sur plus, and to remit taxation. First, as to,repairing a de ficit, there was this advantage in taking the discussion now, instead of at an earlier period of the session, that when the first financial statemeut was made they were obliged to take upon the credit and faith of the Govern ment the correctness of the estimates laid before them. Since then the House had been in Committee of Ways and Means; estimates had been agreed to in Committee of Supply, and they had now ascertained that, but for the income-tax, there would- be a deficit of 800,0001. With respect to the appropriation of the surplus, ho agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose that econo mically there was no gain in paying such a tax as a tax upon soap, or a protective duty on the import of timber, to apply the produce to the reduction of the National Debt, because taxes of that sort took out of the pockets of the public more than they bronght into the Exchequer. At the same time there was a great moral advantage in the determined re solution of the House to deal with that enormous amount of public debt, and to show that they were willing to make great sacrifices to obtain such a re duction.—(Hear, hear.) Not that he entertained any idea that public opinion would ever go to the extent of repudiating the payment of that debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that five-sixths of the fundholders of the country received dividends not ex ceeding 501. a year, and he might have stated a fact still more striking. The British Association, in its meeting in Edinburgh, read a statistical paper, in which the fundholders were di v ided i n t o twelve classes, ac cording to the amounts they received. It appeared that there had been, between the years 1831 and 1848, a con siderable and large diminution in the number of fund holders in every one of these classes except one; and what was that? The class of persons receiving less than 5L A proof, not so much that the working classes were making accumulations of money, as that they re garded the public debt as a safe investment for their savings.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt the great point in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the re duction of taxation that he proposed. He would say nothing of the equalization of the duty on foreign and colonial coif. e, and the reduction of the duty on foreign timber. because he apprehended that nobody would raise an objection to them, and probably ' the Right Hon. Gentlemen could not have laid his finger on two ar ticles more deserving of the consideration of the House; but the loss in these was small compared with what he proposed to abandon with respect to the window-tax, and it was with regard to that part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's policy he was com pelled to give a qualified and hesitating assent. He should have thought that the Right lion. Gentleman EVENING- 1 APRIL 8, 1851. would have been satisfied with levying the duty not on the number of the windows, but on the letting value of the house. But he was not contented with substituting I that new mode of levying the duty proposed to accona- ' pally the subeti:ution by a loss, first to the extent of three-fourths of a million, and then to the extent of 1,150,000/. It was obvious that that great reduction of taxation would not benefit at all events, the working idisses.—(Hear, hear.) The owners and occupiers of the better cia's of houses, amounting to 500,000 oat Of 3,500,000, would be b eaeGted, and these alone. The Right Hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Mill's " Elements of Political Economy" iu support of his proposition; but what did Mr. Mill say—that the house-tax was one of the first and most equitable taxes that could be imposed, fur this reason, that it was paid by persons in proportion to their power of expenditurs. It was quite clear that a man's power of expenditure was a better test of his ability than his income. Instances might be daily seen of a nominal income the whole amouat not being in the power of the party to di ;pose of. They had heard enough of the injustice and impolicy of the incotne•tax; and no one could deny the difference between a life and a permanent income. But there was a still broader distinction between these and the more precarious contingencies of fortune, health, reputation, and employment. Men in that position were bound by considerations of prudence, duty, and foresight, not merely to lay by a portion of their income fur the pur pose of providing for those who were to come after them, to start them in life with a prospect of success, but they were also bound to lay by something for that stage of their own lives when years declined and health decayed. But what was the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? To make these parties pay a most unfair and unequal proportion. He could not give even a qua lified assent to that. At the same time he looked at the income-tax as a great lever for elevating the social and moral condition of the working classes, He looked forward to a long career of on ward progress in that path of social improve ment on which they had entered; and he should be most loth and reluctant to abandon that great instru ment by which so much good had been effected, and which, if they were to effect what remained to be done, they must maintain. He allowed for the great pressure on the Government;- but he could not say that he thought they had made the best use of their power in the re-im position of the income-tax. The task was not so diffi cult, and they had only to follow out and apply on a larger and broader manner the great principles of the system of commercial and financial legislation which had been commenced in 1842, and - they would find now, as then, that it would open up new channels for the in. dustry and labour of the country, extend and widen the area of our foreign markets, and bring within the reach of the poor and humble an increased amount of the comforts and conveniences of life, diffuse peace and con tentment over the country. range the working classes on the side of peace and good government, and by so doing give increased strengtn and stability to the institutions of the country, which he valued not for themselves, but for the sake of the advantages and blessings they en joyed under them.—(Loud ceers.) Mr. T. BARING having complimented the preceding speaker on his able speech, proceeded to say that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointedly alluded to him, ho felt it necessary to trouble the House with a few words. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in stating that his real surplus would be only 612,0001., added that he was ashamed to call it a surplus, but that it was dimi nished by the concessions he had made to the owners and occupiers of laud. Since that he had:reformed his Bud get, sweeping away those concessions, and his surplus, instead of being increased, was farther diminished.— (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Baring) believed that Govern ment had diminished their surplus and altered their Bud get in compliance with pressure from without; and so be lieving, he had called it the act of a weak Government. He should have passed the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech without notice, but when his supporters praised his speech as a substitute for a Budget, and compared it with Lord Stanley's, he then had remarked that the ten dency of the speech was not to sustain public credit, but to buy popularity by the removal of taxation. The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the declaration of Sir Robert Peel that be did not wish to maintain a large surplus because he was convinced that the House of Commons would make any deficiency good and maintain public credit. True, but he (Mr. Baring) had confidence not only in the Right Honourable Baronet's intentions, but his power.—(Hear, hear.) Now he had the fullest confidence in the intentions of the Noble Lord opposite; but certainly he had not the same confidence in his power.—(Lear, hear.) He should not trouble the House us to the nature of the vote he was about to give, further than that he was one of the old.fashioned people who believed that it was important to have a large surplus. Ho was sorry to have heard gentlemen express a dif ferent opinion, believing that a surplus was necessary to maintain our position abroad and our institutions at home. Therefore he confessed that he did not agree with his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Stamford in re ducing so much of the income-tax.—(A laugh.) He had not been aware of his Right Hon. Friend's proposal; he had only seen his resolution, and found that he was contented with 350,000/. surplus. One Hon. Gentleman wished to take off the window-tax, and the other would reduce tho income-tax. He preferred the latter, as he believed that it would benefit the masses more then the former. The Right lion. Gentleman opposed the in come-tax at first because it was proposed by Sir Robert Peel merely to make up a deficiency. He (Mr. 'l'. Baring) could not reconcile that with what he now said about the importance of having a surplus fund. The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted the injustice in volved in the levying of the income-tax, but defended tho tax on the ground that its operation was unjust to all. No one could complain, because every one was in jured. Did any Chancellor of the Exchequer ever before defend a tax on such a ground as that?—(Hear, hear.) Not only was the tax unjust, but it was the cause of much fraud, that for that reason alone it ought to be abolished. As one of the commercial class he could not look at the return under Schedule D without being con vinced that great fraud was practised.—(Hear, hear.) Since 1846 there had been a diminution in the tax to the amount of 6,000,0001.; and since 1843, the year in which it was first imposed, of 8,000,0001. They were in this dilemma, either the commercial prosperity so much boasted of had failed to increase profits, or the greatest frauds had been practised; and one of the strongest ob jections to this tax was, that the honest man paid it, while the dishonest escaped.—(Hear, hear.) He would not trouble the House with many observations. He wished distinctly to state his conviction that without a surplus the country could not be safe.—(Hear.) Ho did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that by leaving money in the hands of the people they obtained as good security fur the public creditor as they could in any other manner. The public creditor wished to see not only that the country was able, but that it was willing, to fulfil its engagements; and it was no satisfaction to him to tell him that the debtor kept the money in his pocket and was able to pay. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had very ably stated his views with regard to what had occurred since 1842. In a great deal that the lion. Gentleman said he (Mr. Baring) entirely concurred, more especially with regard to the edvantaaes of dividing the taxation between direct and indirect, if the direct taxation could be made just. An income-tax was a tax for an emergency. There was no more dangerous emergency than that arising out of a deficiency, and Sir Robert Peel proposed the tax of 1842 ou that ground. He must here observe that it was not fair to compare one year with another without taking everything into consideration ; neither was it right to re gard increased exports as a proof of prosperity, though he admitted that to a certain extent it was. H© could have wished that the Government had proposed to main tain the whole of the surplus, to continue the income-tax for one year, affording time f or cons id er i ng h ow i t m i g ht be modified so as to make it just, and then, if there were a great surplus next year, to leave that surplus to be ap plied either in reduction of general taxation ' or to the re moval of the income - tax. Although from the Exhibition, and other temporary causes, there might be for a time great prosperity, yet it should not be forgotten that the difference between the revenue of 1848 and that of 1847 was a fall in the latter period of 2,000,0001. in the ordi nary revenue of the country ; and he (Mr. T. Baring) would not blink the question, that they ought not to re duce taxation unless they were quite convinced that what was remitted would not be required.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had begged his friends not to propose the redaction of small taxes, but rather to deal with taxes affecting articles of larger consumption. Did he suppose that if he repealed the window-tax one year, and some other tax_ the next, he would ever be able to propose the reduction of the duty on tea? Se agreed with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that it would be worth while to retain the income-tax, in order to reduce the duty on tea to the extent of ls.; but be did not see how that object could be promoted by taking off the window-tax. Had Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so ostentatiously called themselves the friends of the people, ever proposed a reduction of the duty on tea — an article which entered so largely into the consumption of the people, and upon which there was levied a duty of 300 per cent.?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told the House the other night, why he did not propose to reduce that duty; it was because it was not a protective duty. It entered, however, into the consumption of everybody. There was not a ploughboy who trod the heavy clay.--(Laughter)—and there was not a shepherd who climbed the barren hills—(Renewed laughter)—there was not a soldier who had returned from a foreign station but what consumed tea.—(Continued laughter.) And if he wished to indulge in the language of sympathy for the poor for a special political purpose, he could tell the reason why" no reduction of the tea duty was proposed—it was because it would be a benefit to all classes and an injury to none.—(Hear, hear.) It would depreciate no British property, it would ruin no British colony, it would sacrifice no British capital, it would reduce the wages of no British labouren—(Cheers.) That was " the reason why" there was to be no reduc tion of the duty on tea; but, instead of that, the window tax was to be repealed.—(Hear, hear.) He must declare that he could not support the Right Hun. Gentleman's financial policy. He saw in it nothing large or compre hensive; he saw in it no justice to those whom the Right Hon. Gentleman admitted to be suffering; he saw in it a want of regard for the public creditor; and, believing as he did, that it had a partial character, a popular pur pose, and would not tend to benefit the country at large, he should vote for the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, with the condition that a reduction of the income-tax was the best step that could be taken.—(Cheers ) Mr. WILSON thought that the reasons assigned by. the Hon. Member for objecting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan ought to have induced him to dissent even more strongly from the amendment. The Hon. Gentleman had somewhat misrepresented what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when the income-tax was originally proposed by Sir R. Peel. What the Right Hon. Gentleman really said was, that although he disliked an income-tax, he would not object to its impo sition if it were used as the means of enabling the .Go- vernmeat to repeal the duties on corn, sugar, and timber. by which they might srgue the question. He was quite The Hon. Member was dissatisfied with the Chancellor sure there was one Honourable Gentleman opposite, who, of the Exchequer assigning as a reason for not reducing from his own experience of the agricultural districts of the duty on tea that it was not a protective duty; but to the west of England could testify that the number of his (Mr. Wilson's) mind that was a good objection. The those employed in agriculture hid not increased with whole of a duty which was not protective went into the the natural increase of the population. When they found Exchequer, whereas of a duty which was protective only that the population, instead of tilling the soia were a portion reached the public Treasury, the rest going obliged to descend into the bowels of the earth as miners, into the pockets of persons who ought not to have it. It and when they depended upon the loom and upon com appeared to him that the Hon. Member for Leominster merce for employment, then, he said, it was their duty was justified in assuming that the object of the amend- to place no impediment on the natural extension and pro meat was the reversal of the policy which the House and gress of their manufacturing industry. If they were now the Government had pursued for the last ten years. The to place an import duty upon articles of cansumption— House was called upon to decide whether the tax on pro- if they repealed the income-tax and relied upon import perry and income should be continued, or whether, in duties—if they were prepared to place a ss. duty on case of need, the system of import duties should be re- wheat, then he asked them to consider on what an unsa verted to. It was said the other night that the credit of tisfactory basis they would place their financial system. the country would be jeopardized by relying too much ou Let them consider what it would cost the country. To direct taxation. It should, however, by borne in mind that gain a revenue of 2,500,0001. they would piece a cost in this country the direct taxation formed only 20 percent. upon the consumers which would amount to 10 000,000/. of the gross taxation, white in France it was 35 per a year; and then he asked them what they would do for cent, in Belgium 37 per cent., in Holland 35 per cent.,' a revenue in case of a famine, and when they would be and in Prussia 37 per cent. Betweee 1823, when Mr. compelled to repeal the whole of their import duties? Huskissoa began to reduce taxes upon raw materials He could hardly believe that Honourable Gentlemee with the view of increasing the means of employment to were really sincere in their intended reversal of a policy the industrial classes, to;1839, upwards of 11,000,000/. of which had had so beneficial an effect upon the working taxes were repealed, and yet at the latter period the classes, which had secured to them constant employment, revenue was nearly equal to what it was at the form er . an d h a d supplied them with cheap food and good wages. He would next refer to the period between 1830 and —(Hear. and cheers.) 1841. In that period the total amount of taxes reduced Mr. BOOKER said that, representing as he did . a deeply was 8,437,7931. The result was that at the end of that suffering agricultural population, he made no apology for period there was a deficiency of revenue to the extent intruding himself upon the debate—(Hear)—but in doing so of 2,008,0001., notwithstanding the imposition of 5 per he would endeavour to bring back the debate to its legith cent. on Customs' duties in 1840 ; and, although this mate object.—(Hear.) He would not attempt to follow the still showed an apparent gain to the country of lion. Gentleman w ho had j u st sat down through the long tfitnbeey labyrihimselfnth se. of statistics with which he had sought to mystify 6,437.0001., yet he believed it would be found that the b to u t thathe should, h o n u n k 1 , on the hie h contrars t e .enJleanveofuerretotchoen advantage was more apparent than real. He believed it would be found that the system pursued from 1830 —the Right Hon. ' Gentleman's jeetw a w m a e s tad s m n e e nt y . (Hear.) In m to 1841 did not prove at all beneficial to the trade and doing so he would endeavour to treat the question finances of the country, that during that period our ex• strictly as a domestic question, and to omit all reference to ports remained almost stationary, or little more than its bearings upon their foreign policy. He hoped he might the natural increase of the population. In 1830 the incurimpress dans ewirt nio t t 1 oh, enabled asabunl Mouse i dtwhl7 ie with cGwhebve the rn t nwe deep s t to r responsibilityfe pursueith a d piflei l ci eu i y t l t wouldy which d official value of our imports was 46,200,0001., while in 1842 it was 64,300,0001., showing an increase of i o n er t s i i ) s e ted t in, must end in the te 18,100,0001.; being at the rate of 39 per cent. on the 12 utter g ruin of every interest in presenting as he aid an agricultural a c t e e nTni ( unit e y ers a pro - - years, or 3-4- per cent. per annum, or double the increase tested against the imposition of a tax which - was of population. In 1830 the real value of our exports per was 38,250,0001.; in 1842 it was 47,000,0001.—increase fectly iniquitous—(Cheers)--and which pressed with in -8,750,0004; being at the rate of 23 per cent. on the 12 equality upon interests that were struggling and suffering. years, or 2 per cent. per annum, or little more than the (Cheers.) Were they, he asked, to tell a suffering corn natural increase of the population. This result was by munity that there was justice—that there was policy in no moans gratifying or satisfactory. But if the com- compelling them to pay a tax upon los ses , i ns t ea d o f mercial result of the policy which we pursued from 1830 u pon pr ofits?— ( Cheers.) And then, when they threw to 1842 was not satisfactory the financial result was still down the gauntlet to them—when they endeavoured to less so, for he found that during that period not only had li i rray . class against class—when taey st sought Co and excite into the public debt increased to the extent of 7,778,0001., ostility against each other city again age. county a and the balances in the Exchequer been reduced from o ? r a n insttown, he asked them, why did they not look to their e in 1830 to 3,653,000/. in 1841, being a de-returns? Why did they conceal the truth—be did not 5,993,000/ say intentionally—or why did they throw dust in the eyes, crease of 2,340,0001., but he found that from 1837 to h e did n , t say of Members, but of those who sent them there 1842 there was an annual deficiency of revenue amount- —of their constituents—of those by whom this question ing in the whole period to no leas than 8,709,121/., the would finally be decided?—(Hear, near.) Now, he must deficiency in the year 1842.43 alone being estimated at tell the inhabitants of large towns that they had as much 2,500,0004 He begged the attention of the House to the cause to complain of the inequality of this impost as the fact, that of the 8,437,7931. of taxes remitted from 1830 agriculturists.—(H ear , h ear .) Th e on l y re t ur n they had to 1841 only 750,6731. were reductions of customs' on this subject w as one soug h t f or b y M r. Mullings. It duties. lie would next call the attention of the House I s e h a o s lve a d s most extraordinary h results; and he believed—at by heard o of the debate—that it had not to the remarkable contrast which the policy pursued Honourable Gentleman. iih It l apd been referred as toe peered by this retu y rn an t y hat i from 1842 to 1850 presented to that which was pursued to trades and professions, there was guieven in the period to which he had just referred. From 1842 , an wi e l n ic um r e e ra a t t io e n to 1850 an entirely new system prevailed, the object of of classes, and the incomes in each, the duty charged up on which was to relieve trade from impediments, to repeal the number of persons in each class, and th e amoun t re entirely the duties upon raw materials, to remove duties ceived from each class. This would show what was the which were merely protective, and to reduce the duties benefit intended for the country by the Chancellor of the which were found to be excessive upon articles of general Exchequer, and it would prove that the burden of the in. consumption. The reduction of taxation effected in that come-tax bore with peculiar severity upon the middle period amounted to 10,251,294/.—consisting of Customs, classes in . of cities.hse The the number number of s n ' l c. a h v 7 n dule le was 8,218,9581.; Excise, 1,434,2801.; stamps, 598,056/. In under 5001. was 124,733, and upon these 124,010 having s om was es 1841—and he took that year instead of 1812, because placed the great pressure of the tax, leaving only 9 0,000 the latter was a year of depression—in 1841 the Cus- who had incomes over 5001., and showing that their total tome' receipts were 21,898,0001. ; in 1850 they were contribution was 57,0001., whilst there was contributed by 9 0,442,000/ e showing a loss of 1,456,0001.; while the re- those under seo/. no less a sum than 661,000/. He hoped ductions of Customs' duties effected iu that period the constituents in the large towns—he hoped the inhabit amounted to 8,218.958/. The Excise receipts, in 1811, ants of private streets would understand this—he Loped the amounted to 13,678,0001.; in 1850 they amounted to country would understand it.—(Cheers.) He hoped the peo -14,316,000/., showing a gam of 638,0001, uotwithstand- s: h le e s e v o o u u t l i d tr n y ot h e b i e n g de e l e u c d o e s d in b n y e d e l a h p - t h T h s asre rents , t N a y e d hen lst i r t es N s v a o s f ing the reduction of Excise duties amounted to 1,434,280/. notorious ihat rents had fallen by notorious 20 to 25 per cent.- -(Hear. hear.) In 1841 the whole revenue amounted ( Hear, hear.) Did they wish these rents to fall lower? Was to 48,084,0001 , and in 1850 to 52,810,000/4 showing a that their philosophy ? If it was heekyould tell them gain of 4,726,0004 during nine years. ll' from this in- : there was a great phiiosepher once who thought otherwise. crease he deducted the income-tax receipts—amounting The great John Locke, in writing upon the subjects, declared to 5,500,0001.—a net loss would be exhibited of only that an infallible sign of national decay was the fall of rents, 774,0001., while the reduction of taxes amounted. RS and that the raising of them was worth a nations care, as in he had shown, to 10,251,2941.—(Hear, hoar.) The that, and not on the falling of interest, lies the advantage of financial results of the policy were not less striking. the public.--(Hear.) By him the fall of rent was attributed Not only had the national debt been reduced in to two causes—an exhaustion of the productive power of the that period to the extent of 4,221,0001., but the balances soil, and then to the measure of its produce. Here, then, in the Exchequer had increased no less than 7,855,000/., •v i. t a i s n n a N m , l e t as h i f tr r e e i o g f n its r p o rdoudeuec.e and by s N e v t l i t i i i n s ei it , h i i n s u l i v ij: 4 l s t , c h n i 1 , i r pe and whereas in 18 4,2 there were deficiency bills due to l a b ourers were l eav i ng t h e i r s h ores, an d the producti("yeelpotwoeiri the Bank to the extent of 6,606,0004, in 1850 there was of machinery was increased in a tenfold degree.—(Hear.) a surplus in the Bank, after payment of all claims, He implored of the Noble Lord, who he did believe had the amounting to 1,012,000/. If this was not a satisfactory interest and the welfare of the country at heart, to look to result he could not say what was.—(Hear, hear.) But, these great facts—that whilst this emigration was going on if the financial results were satisfactory, he thought the year after year, an emigration, not of the idle or the disso- House would admit that the commercial results were lute, but of those who might be called the back-bone of equally striking. In 1842 the official value of our im- England—whilst they were carried away from their native ports was 64,300,0001.; in 1849 it was 105,800,000!., land, and whilst production was increasing- still there was not a productive increase of human labour, but there was an being an increase of 41,500,000/. ; in other words, of 64 enormous increase of mechanical power- of that power per cent. in the whole seven years, or 9pe r cent. per an- which neither eats, nor drinks, nor wears.—(Hear, hear.) num, or at six times the rate of the population.—(Hear, They (the agriculturists) were taunted with being nionopo- hear.) In 1842 the real value of our exports amounted lists, and this was said to them by those whose sole object to 47,000,0001.; in 1850 it amounted to 70,000,0004, was monopoly, the monopoly of trade and commerce—whose being an increase of 23,000,0001.; that was to say, of 50 idol was cheapness, and whose aim and object was to put per cent. in the whole eight years, or 61 per cent. per down their manufacturing rivals in every part of the world. annum, or at four times the rate of the population.— The Hon. Gentleman concluded amid loud cheers by quoting (Hear, hear.) Again, in 1842 the shipping cleared an extract from a speech delivered by Sir Robert Peel in inwards and outwards amounted to 7,347,00 0 tons, 1842. and in 1850 to 12,020,000 tons, being Mr. SLANEY rose amid loud cries of "Divide," which a n inereas-e were very frequently repeated duringdelivery of 4,673,000 tons, or 63 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) He d ress . H e said that he had derived, both by birth and would next present to the House the general contrast habit, all he possessed from agriculture, and that he would between the two periods to which he had just re- hesitate before he adopted any line of conduct which, in his (erred—viz., from 1830 to 1842, and from 1842 to 1850. opinion, would have the effect of injuring that great interest. In the first period the taxes surrendered amounted to He admitted that the change recently made in our commer -8,437,000/o in the second period to 10,251,000 1 .; in the cial policy had been effected too hastily , and that the agricul first period ' the revenue recovered 6,437,000/.; in the tural interest ought to have been afforded more time to con second period 9,477,0001. In the first period the na- form to it; but the question now was, whether they would tional debt increased 7,778,000/.; in the second it de- reverse a policy which he firmly believed had upon the whole creased 4,221,000/., notwithstanding the 10,000,000/. Jf,7 s k r e e d al b m en ? efic j i t i l i l l n la s , ie fo n r the i g 3 r e e e a n t m m a a s d s e e si in the J l l e te e p n e n o r p s l e e N o v f it t h h in e added in consequence of the Irish famine. At the close this debate to the necessity of having security for the payment of of the first period the balances in the Exchequer had the national revenue; but he thought that increases security decreased 2,340,0004; at the close of the second they for that was afforded by the diminished weight of taxation had increased 7,855,000/. At the close of the first now borne by the people. Since the peace there had been a period the deficiency bills amounted to 6,606,000/4 at diminution of 42,000,000/. in the taxation of the country; the close of the second the surplus in the Bank amounted and this amount had not been taken off the shoulders of the to 1,012,000/. At the close of the first period the doff- opulent, the noble and the rich. Almostevery tax taken off had ciency of income over expenditure was 2,500,0001.; at been removed either from the manufacture of raw materials or the close of the second there was a surplus to the same from those articles which entered largely into to the consump extent. During the first period the imports increased tion of the masses—such, l for instance, as salt, wine, tobacco, 18,100,0001. ; during the second they increased rum, the hemp, e ffe consequencee these ea fruit, reductions? a dandspits. s \ rAhnyd that what fromhad 41,500,000/n !seine. at the rato of 39 per cent. during been h 1815 down to the present time—a period of 35 years—the the first period, and 64 per cent. during the second; or property of the middle classes had increased from 53,000,0001. 3-1 per cent. during the first period, and 9 per cent. to 94,000,0001. a year. The population had increased during during the second; or double the rate of population in the same period 50 per cent. ; the increase of it in the rural the first period, and six times in the second. During districts had been 32, and in the great towns 96 per cent. the first period the exports increased 8,750,0001., during During the same period the legacy duties had increased from the second 23,000,000/ ; the increase in the first period 24,000,0001. to 45,080,0001.; insurances had increased from being 23 per cent., and in the second 50 per cent., or 385,00 . 0,000/. to 722,000,000/. ; and it was the calculation of at the rate of 2 per cent. on the first period, and 6 1 per an eminent deresett in those that real and personal same 5.5 years front Mr. Porter, cent. on the second, or little more than the population Property2uo. ouo,ooo/. to 2,400,000,000/. The taxes, therefore, rate in the first period, and four times in the second.— 1,`200.000,0001.were now apportioned and extended over an increased (Hear, hear.) In the first period the shipping cleared amount of property.—(Hear, hear.) Ile contended that the inwards and outwards amounted to 7,347,000 tons, in the best way to relieve the land of England, which he admitted second to 12,020,000 tons, being an increase of 63 per was at present in a depressed condition, was to benefit those cent. One of the great means relied on by the Right large classes of the community wile were the chief consumer; Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present motion of its produce. This was a far better way to raise landed was the repeal of the duties on raw materials. Well, by property than to attempt to do so by the reimposition of re reference to papers before the House it would be found strictive duties.—(Hear, hear.) that the whole amount of cotton imported in 1842 was Mr. SPOONER rose for the purpose of bringing back the 4,200,000 cwt.; in 1850, 5,934,000; wool, in 1842, House t i o ni t i he h point from which they had wandered. The 45,000,000 cwt.; in 1850, 74,000,000 cwt.; raw silk in Right waef l dL Hon. the Chancellorof l the n E d x cl a i e eri li t , ae o r h proposed n l i p o n n t e 1842, 3,365,000 lb.; in 1850, 4,942,000 lb.; hemp, in bar y for Slmfo g rd suggested ri' u ' a , nt a alier t The question q t uesti o'n then - 1842, 585,000 cwt.; in 1850, 1,048,000 cwt.; flex, in was, which the House would prefer. The Right Hoe. the 1842, 1,130,000 cwt.; in 1850, 1,821,000 cwt. The cotton Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a tax which he I en had increased 41 per cent., and the population 12 per self, when out of office, had denounced as full of injustice, cent.; the wool 64 per cent.; silk, 46 per coat; hemp, 80 inequality, and fraud. It was full of injustice and fraud per cent.; flax, 61 per cent. The amount of duties re- when opposed by the Noble Lord who then sat on that (the 2 duced on raw material was 2,500,0004—(E1ear, hear.) Opposition) side of the House. Why was it lesasont a ,, , , , a In the same period the consumption of tobacco had Because the Noble Lord had changed ..e sides.—(Hear' , Gentleman said increased 25 per cent. ; wine, 38 per cent. ; toe, 1 . a e u g h h t a e d r . ) not ile p "eirthe"ottioauxraut on those grounds 38 per cent. ; spirits, 53 per cent.; and sugar, 60 n but on . merely opposed grounds; and he added that he per cent. He also begge 1 the attention of the House +osed the eontinuance now, because the plan he sub to the tranquil state of the country within the last pitted was one that would benefit the masses. .But th e , few years, compared with the outbreaks which occurred House would see how far that was correct b y a !Ingle pas at Monmouth, Sheffield, and other places just prior sage which he would read from a speech by the Right lion. to 1842. It could not be said that there had been pecu- Gentleman in 184.5, who said, when answering the Ml:Ml:lent liar causes connected with the political and social con- which had gone before, "To the general argument against dition of the country during the lest ten years to account the income-tax for inequality, injustice, and vexation, no for the success of the free-trade policy to which he had answer whatever has been h given."— H the ear, hear.) The referred, for during that period we had had a common Right H d on. al G i e d n o tle n m o an th t e adoptedeHnons e for an wards of the Noble chi panic such as had never been known, perhaps, in Lord, called follow the example, anslver: Ile (Mr. this country; we had had a famine iu Ireland unparal- . e i. laight Hon. Gentleman to give the guster whichl u plies fact leled in the present century—we had had revolutions all challenged in 1845. The Right Hon. Gentleman also, in over Europe—all of which causes had interfered mate- that year, said, in answer to the allegation, t h at it was a tax rialiy with the progress of the commerce and trade of pressing exclusively upon the rich, that it pressed upon the the country.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for poor because it diminished the means of giving employment. Bucks had taunted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with He was anxiouasntdo l i i i e e ar h a l full answer from the Right Hon. the frequent allusions he was in the habit of making to Gentleman;onsse tetle real point 'bdef endeavoured to bring back the the improved condition of the people. He (Mr. Wilson) Noble Lord at the head ot ore them, t wo h n oil that l l t the begged to say that if the Hon. Gentleman the Member why a tax which, in 1845, thee I G iad ve stTg n in 'e atized as vexatious, for Bucks should ever, after having occupied the Minis was the tax which his Government now proposed to inflict Wrist' benches for five years, be enabled to refer in t he upon the country. same way to the result of the policy in which h e had. been Mr. J. REYNOLD S said that, h av i ng vo t e d f or th e con engaged—if he could refer to the improved condition of H tinuance of th e i ncome-tax i n 1849, an d i n t en di ng now to the people, to the diminution of pauperism , to the vote for the amen d ment o f M r . erries— (Oh, and 11ear)— crease of poor-rates, and, above all , to th e diminution he was an x i ous to exp l a i n th e r eason why h e h a d come to the number of ablebodied poor, he would have just ca use of the latter d e t erm i nat i on . The financial propositio ns ma de to refer with satisfaction to the po lic y in which he by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were numerous and had embarked.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the important; but :after listening to Hon. Members on each income-tax, he (Mr. Wilson) could not look upon it as a side of the House, it appeared that the item to which most He thought importance was attached, was the proposal to renew the tax which was peculiar to a time of war. r a w r lat tax would income-tax for three years. The Right Hon. Gentleman it was the duty of the House to consider and he was su • stated that it was not his intention to extend that tax to best answer the purposes they require le Ireland at present— inconven. the people would suffer the temporary.um _ of inconvenience, , file CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Not at all. oven of an income-tax, to secure th n e_trt phs peace Mr. J. REYNOLDS—To say that he did not intend to rather than to support a wasteful a d de s tructiveßuckingham- war. do so at present meant only that at some future period the —(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Buckingham- Right Hon. Gentleman, or soma one upon whom his mantle shire and his friends never seemed to think that any Y might fall, would reel it to be his duty to extend the tax to reduction of taxation was of consequence to the Ireland; and taking that view of the question, it occurred agricultural interest unless it was made exclusively to him that it was the duty of the Irish representatives to e for the benefit of that interest. Now ho (Mr. Wilscai) oppose its renewal now. When Sir R. Peel . propose n d I t r h e_ body, no portion of the ems income-tax in 1842, he placed the non-extension of it t believed that, taken as a unable to bear ten the munity had benefited more by reductions of the last land upon the ground that she was certainly agricultural consmunit • 3..—(Cries of the pressure, and that there was no machinery existing ten years than the ..there to enable him to apply it ; but he wound up by saying "Uhl" from the opposition benches.) pposition Ile maintained that, as an equivalent for the non-extension of the income that the agricultural community had benefited as much tax to Ireland, he should assimilate the stamp duties of the as any other class by the removal of the duties on sugar, two countries, and he afterwards did so. He (Mr. Reynolds) tobacco, and other articles, and that they would receive held in his hand an extract from official documents under as much benefit as any other class by the substitution the head of " Stamps and Taxes," and from it the House of a h ouse -tax for a window-tax. It ought also to be would observe that by this assimilation Ireland had been borne in mind that every recurring census showed forced to pay a certain an nua ve lLut h n et a o s re an th c s m i ivalent for the that the agriculturists were becoming a smaller and income-tax.l ro n d l o B c -l ed l, th e 3 by the stamp duties in v l w re a la s r l ill as :v e a d s, smaller proportion of the population. In 1811 the t 4 46' 00 1 0/and that 9 about the average of the seven 3, ~ awa pre agricultural population was 34 per cent. of the whole; ceding years. But after the "assimilation " the sums raised in 1821 it was 27 per cent.; in 1831, it was 24 per were as follows: cent.; ' and in 1841, it w a s so far from increas - 1842 ing, that it was 35,000 less than there had 1843 been employed in agriculture in 1831,—(Cries of " Oh! 1844 ...... 583,001 _ .... , ohl") lion. Gentlemen might say " Oh 1" but:he spoke from the public returns which they would find in the library.—(laughter.) If Hon. Gentlemen were pre pared to discredit the returns of the cenaus—(llear, hear) —then he did not know where they could get a test 184 i 18 46 1847 1848 . For 1849 and 1850 there were no returns; but he took it that the amounts would be about equal to those of the two preceding years; and if he were right in that calculation Ireland would, in nine years, have contributed to the revenue, in increased stamp duties, to the extent of 1 . 0 00,000/. stertilio, That increase in stamp duties Lad fallen aim )st entirety 0 the poor of Ireland. He might be told that Scoesaud had been similarly treated, but a reference to figures would prove the reverse. He might be told that it w as not income-tax, but he maintained it was income-tax.. Ireland in four years, in consequence of the destruc tion of her crops, had lost 100,000,000/. sterling, and this, too, in a country put under the high pressure of poor rates—a country from which 2,000,0001. a-year for the last two years - had been drawn by the aid of poor rates. And thie, too, with those human slaughter houses, the Kilrush and Ennistymon Unions, where seventy died weekly, and 1 te-d. was the average charge per head for the support of the poor, and `4-d. a week for clothing. They in this country would not attempt to feed, or rather starve poor men in England for 11 e n d. per IN eek, nor would they for 21/ 2 d. per week attempt to clothe a dog —( Loud laughter) - that is, if dogs were clothed in Eng land. lie vas told this tax concerned the poor—he a.nuld be glad to know how the poor were to be benefited by the removal or the continuance of the tax. He objected to the tax, on account of its inequality. The Honour able Member then quoted two passages from a former speech of Lord John Russell one condemnatory of the inequality of the tax, arid another advocating a tax on the succession to real property. He was for the letter proposition. Ile was for saddling real property as heavily as personal property was now taxed. He had prin cipally risen to remind the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan cellor of the Exchequer of his sins of omission. lie referred to the paper duty. He did not object to the repeal of the window-tax ; but if the tax were repealed, would it set even one Englishman or one Irishman to work? But take off the tax on paper, and you would set at work double the number of persons now employed. He also wished to see the soap duty repealed. But he could find that nothing was done by the Budget to set the people to work. As an Irish Mem ber, he complained that the Budget did nothing for his country—lreland. (Oh.) H e com pl a ined that the dety on articles of necessity was not reduced; such, for instance, as the duty on tea.- (Hear, hear.) He might be asked what did Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House propose? Ile was not aware of any proposition that was to be made by that party. They objected to the income-tax—he did not:— (Laughter.) He was favourable to the continuation of the income-tax on principle—(Loud langhter)— but he was iop pose I to its inequality and ts unjust operation on the pro fessional man and trader. Having satisfactorily given his reasons for voting for the amendment of the Right Hon. Member for Stamford—(Laughter)—he was addressing Irish Members, and he would ask them if there was anything in the Budget that ought to engage their suppo e y He could find nothing of the sort, and therefore he was justified in voting with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford. Lord C. HAMILTON thought the House bad been very much engaged in matters extraneous to the real question.— (Hear, hear.) The subject had nothing to do, as was pre tended, with the retrograde movement of free trade. He wished to asked the well-drilled benches opposite whether they meant by their vote to-night to sanction the perma nence of the t ax , an d whether they did not believe that if they voted it to-night the Chancellor of the Exchequer would thee years hence call upon them to vote it again?— (Hear , r, hear.) That was th e r eal question they had to de termine in considering whether they would rc-impose a tax which had been more eloquently denouncee by those who now proposed it than by any other people in the House. — (Hear.) If they were going to do a thing at all, let them do it openly, fairly, and professedly, but don't let the Govern ment impose, under the guise ot a temporary tax, what they in their hearts felt must be permanent. He rejoiced that the window-tax was condemned. If the majority should deter mine the division in favour of the Government, then let the Government come forward and say that what was to be per manent should be equitable.—(Hear, hear.) The injustice of the tax might he passed over when it was levied for a temporary emergency, but now, when the House were asked to vote it for the fourth time, it was a mockery and a trifling with the country to go on holding out the pretext that the tax was a temporary one. - (Hear.) He called upon Hon. Gentlemen opposite not to allow the income-tax to be riveted upon the country unless they were prepared to make it just to all classes.—(Cheers.) Mr. S. CRAWFORD (who rose amid a loud cry of " Oh I oh !") said the real question he had to consider was whether he should vote fcr the re-imp os ition of this tax for three years with all its objections. N ow , h e did no t feel himself justi fiedin voting for the income-tax with all its inequalities.— (Cheers.) He was the r e p resen t at i ve o f a manu f ac t ur i n g constituency, who felt most grievously the burden of that tax, awl who declared that it ought not to be continued in its present state. Ile was friendly to a tax upo n rea l pro perty, but lie was not friendly to the arbitrary, oppressive, and inquisitorial proceedings which that tax necessitated. As a Radical and supporter of reform, he would not con sent to assn the Government with this tax for a period of three years, more especially as he believed that by judicious retrenchments it might readily be dispensed Sir R. INGLI said, the greeter part ot the discussion of that evening had been upon the merits o f Budgets, No. 1 and 2, and not upon the real issue as beta ten the . propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Right Hon. Gen tleman the Member for Stamford. He confessed that his objections were as strong against one plan as the other, because if it were inquisitorial, unequal, and unjust, to levy one sum, it was equally so to levy a smaller sum. The point, therefore, to be considered was whether the public credit of the country did or did not require the amount of income- taxiproposed to be raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those who knew him knew that he objected to the income-tax on account of the way in which it pressed upon particular interests, and they also knew how desirous he had been that the first charge should commence at 15' 1. as a unit. Ile had no alternative now, however, but to take the tax as he found it proposed by the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, or to take the mitigated form proposed by his Right lion. Friend, and, believing that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would be enabled, if he carried his proposition, to re lieve an immense amount of taxation, he thought that, under all the circumstances, it was the most preferable of the two. He had no great difficulty in making up his mind upon this question, but he felt compelled reluctantly to give his vote to the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.— (Hear.) The House divided, when there appeared— For the original resolution ... ... 278 For Mr. Ilerries's amendment ... 230 Majority ... 48 Mr. DISRAELI said he had given notice of an amend ment upon the question now before the House, and he wished to know from the Right lion. Gentleman opposite whether it would not be more convenient to him to take the debate and division on his amendment at a future stage of the proceedings rather than at present, probably on Friday next, assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer pro posed on that day to go into Committee on the window-tax; he thought it might be more agreeable to the Right Hon. Gentleman to take his (Mr. Disraeli's) amendment on that day than go on with it now. Lord J. RUSSELL said the course proposed would be convenient. He understood the Hon. Gentleman to agree that the report on the resolution then before House should be received, provided his Right Hon. Friend assented to the debate and division on the Hen. Gentleman's motion being taken on Friday, which would be a convenient course. Mr. "'ISRAELI said, he did this on the distinct under standing that the Government would bring forward their re solution on Friday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that the course which he intended to take was this :—He should propose . that the resolution be reported now, so as to enable him to bring in a Bill for carrying out the proposition which the House had just affirmed. At future stages of the pro ceedings upon this subject there would doubtless be several discussions, and on Friday the Hon. Member for Bucking hamshire would have an opportunity of submitting his amendment to the House, as he (the Chancellor of the .E -chi.quer) proposed that on that day the House should sit in Committee on the house and window-tax. On Fnda . y the Hon. Gentleman would have a full and fair oppertu ofo y moving his amendment on the question t hat the Speakermt leave the chair, and then the Hon. GentlGent leman 6 111 if he v.iehed, move the adoption of his proposition instead of the hossa and window-tax. to proceed with his amendme nt d n a d y e r s nexttoo d he dud was now, with the permission of t h e Clouse, Mr. DISRAELI repeated th at heu i . e °ll Friday would state th e prec i se terms of that proposition. which ere as follows : w ~ in any relief to be hicw, granted by the remissi on or ad justment of taxation , due regard should in the first instance be paid to t he distressed condition of the owners and occu piers of land in the United Kingdom. Mr. GOULI 3 q hN— Did the Right Hon. Gentleman in tend to move his proposition in a Committee of Ways and m ean s, or did he mean to propose a Committee of the whole House to cons T ol , er . a repeal of th e w i n d ow -t ax ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that y M e at was called a Wind ow -t ax was a h ouse -tax levied on inhabited houses, according to the number of windows or lights that they contained. The resolution which he intended to propose to the House was, that the tax, instead of being levied according to the number of lights, should be levied ac cortlimg to the annual value of the house. Colonel SIBTHORP stated to the House that it was not his intention to abandon his motion, of which he had given notice, of the exemption of tenant-farmers and officers of the army a nd navy from the income-tax, but to persist in it, although the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had mbsequently introduced a motion of almost similar character. Mr. HERMES asked whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to push forward the Bill to continue the income and property-tax so as to have it in Committee before Easter ? it was in the Committee on the Bill that his lion. and Gallant Friend would have the beat opportunity of proposing his motion. Mr. GLADSTONE suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put on the votes the terms of the motion which he proposed to make on Friday respecting the win dow-tax. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) was right in suggesting to the Hon. and Gallant Colonel to make his pro position on sonic stage of the Property-tax Bill. He was of aid that the Bill for the renewal of the income-tax cou'd not be committed before Easter, as there were only two days before Easter of which the Government had the command for a purpose of this description. The house and window tax would be taken on Friday, and he trusted that the de bate would be concluded on the same day. He should be prepared before Friday to communicate, for the convenience of the House, the precise terms of the resolution that he intended to move. Mr. HUME said that the House having now resolved to renew the income-tax for a time to be limited, he should, in Committee on the Bill, propose that the limitation should be for one year, with a view of having a Committee appointed to inquire whether it was not possible to remove some of the grounds of complaint now felt with regard to it. Mr. COBDEN understood the Hon. Member for Mont rose was not opposed to direct taxation, but only wished the income-tax to be so framed that it might be made a perma nent tax. The Hon. Member, however, must be well aware that a large portien of the Members of that House were op posed to the income-tax as a tax, and they would vote with the Hon. Member for limiting it to one year from very dif ferent motives from those which actuated him. Now, he took it for granted that his Hcfla. Friend would like to test the house as to the propriety of levying the tax in a more equitable manner, so as to give more satisfaction to the country ; and, therefore, be (Mr. Cobden) suggested that his licn. Friend, before taking a vote as to the limitation of the tax to one year, should give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the propriety of assessing the tax in:s more equitable manner. Toe report of the original resolution was then agreed to, and leave given to bring in a Bill founded thereon.. The Designs Act Extension Bill w as read a third time, clauses were added, and the Bill passed. The Apprentices to Sea Service(lreland) Bill went thr oug h Committee. EXCHEQUER CHAMBER (IRELAND.) The House then went into Committee on the Exchequer Chamber (Ireland), and on a resolution being handed to the Chairman by the Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. KEOGH inquired what was the object of the re solution ? Mr. HATCHELL replied that it w as a resolut i on w ith re spect to the compensation to be given t o certa i n o fficers of the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, for the abolition of their „tik e s under the Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill.