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

sogo'r" l 7 5 55 1 , e detail ---- sa to the quantity of cotton consumed in a l') le d the , ill th e • benefit which the poor man would derive 1,1,414 reduction of the duty, but did not the Hon. ?!ier tax ° See that if he pursued that course with any , icei fr "e would find that the element of benefit de it eeteletion es un c . 4ll itt its reduction by each individual of :be llesi ' would be but small. Let him pursue his 11 hesed to t. tvith regerd to the 2s. a pound which e,tlesoie_ which off tobacco, and calculate what would i' i t l eNteeoug which would accrue to the peer man upon 4 4 ' with h e was compelled to consume. re tardi liet ili eenloiti to the higher orders, the Hon Gen i,•ll3 ao ned that they would derive from these re e ti t , su fficient compensation for the income-tax ' t slleti were corn elled to pay. But did the lion. S , 704kithi.ek thatPthe reduction of the duty on to ''bi th et ,_glve them that compensation ? It was evi e high e -77. could not by any reductions make up to .tta to ders for the contribution which they were e 7 t :lisoT e t e the income-tax.-(Hear, hear.) Bnt 1 41 , 4 1 ) i e rs h t e dieethtlint„g certain, that ttre income-tax . . did ?tel wee es e upon the lower classes ; and it was i, Gentleman to explain whether the lower eke, 411ot derive ir11714 t o ra . , benefit from a tax which was so ,lii r etter ei 1, e 5 ,000,000 annually from the property , kii i ght li on 4 • .!... 3 . 0f society.-(Hear, hear.) Now, if iktrep oud Friend had come down to Parliament, i t eeni e d e .,Lte reduction of those two duties which i i est.n u ","eman seemed so highly to favour eitjetioom't'LEß had mentioned five or six taxes. He l it :o at he T tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, and spirits ; t t , l? -1 .. .t t1y of "a . d, meant to say was, that if they had re- Ctlaitt tit these, they would have taken a better i ttl 'ett 4e , ‘ which they had taken. It i ttat tit 310ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had an iithtldseti:ollo;ll. Gentleman to insist particularly on .tr,,_ the duty on tobacco and spirits. Now, y." t hat if his Right Hon. Friend had proposed e7ent to devote the surplus of 3,000,0001. to the gau ss 4 ef the b e ,, % e • duty on tobacco and spirits, the Hon. i17%.,111,v0u1d himself have been the first to have tulold t h le rY against such a proposition. He would ; 14 t lI tt i ori ( :! , 1 . 1 that these were not the articles in which tits 0 i:,7 1 duty ought to have beets made. He would i ti "tt e ,', h 7 e ' ed that they were pandering to the vices 0 l o ' instead of ministering to their comforts, lli(t!s te ; ll 4e Gentleman would, in such a case, have i‘Wit tei ,i' his complaints than he had at present. ~, I t.ill. a t in selecting the different articles on 01 4 , cam f e , i 'lli k. te e t e 0 Laity was to be made they were eht.eebtai sem i which the greatest amount of benefit k i Itillei,g• He would not deny the correctness ,is ita l ter e be e laid down by the lion. Gentleman that V t l_te oduc e it e tid to consider what reduction it was that I tn ew _ e the greatest amount of benefit to the poor. Nw l l 4 7ese w 73 withdrawing odes of benefiting the poor suite e,Thea from them the burden of 1 4 1 , 4ti te Lli noti. Gentleman had spoken disparagingly `l 5 , 41111 in the tariff, hut if the effect of those 5 t 4 116 4 ,,e1d be to extend the field of employment `1t,14 -"' new exertions-so induce the employ i eld. e t e t il ri ea ot F_ital . -a . nd to give increased employment - ci tth e ,3 classes-he thought they were con ,,,'°,er classes relief and assistance, inferior \ ti Of t iP that which they would derive from the k l tlish o t rect taxation on articles of consumption. 71 1 11es eg said before, the imposition of an income kasitres'-did absolutely, in fact-prove a re- L l tk ft; er classes of the community. With respect 1 / 4 - 4 - 0 ---, 7 of the duty on glass, he would remind Ss, ee t Ce.Plan that, since the announcement of the ki.. te . k en e . t e tuty had been made, several persons had ( e l , tA kti .. B ,! 4 PS for the purpose of investing capital in ,t g eli % or,eture. When, on a former occasion, he ~51 h i , Ole repeal of the cotton duty and its ad pew ad not confined himself to the advantages VolOr lm_ es oe lasses by the diminution of the cost of tt.. l dress. If that repeal of the cotton duty Vbt NI,: cotton manufactures, it would largely add Icii?id tit °f employment of the working classes ; nti,,,:i._ they could . not . confer a more substan ;l,kti44ll'l,,:e.Y other legislative measure. The Hon. e,_ `.'i ll v. ' spoken of the advantages attending a 1N,,,..• 'to b e ( L ' ‘ e duties on tea. Why a reduction on this lk . 7'• reneficial, must be to the extent of two Nittelett7s reduction than that would be no benefit 1 ,10 11 eti ) ,!. 1. • He thought no one would doubt that 1).7'4, 10 'f the suear duties would be beneficial to I' lel lo . g classes 2 '' and he believed it was gene \. 1 / 4 4 itt e d „ , Vt .114 that it was not inconsistent to I ll l ke "s to the consumer, and at the it'll, g i ve protection to our own colonies. tli;‘ 4 h mber had said that the removal of the taxes th adtaxes e t , e _ alluded would he of great benefit ; but N . !. a te slier of the Exchequer) begged to remind ~,iizo,r that the abrogation of those taxes did Nthitt" th _ i nvolve the others. The Hon. Member o L tho t ,,7_;e were , new theories of his (the . Chan- Oitb ert 7acquer s), but lie begged to remind the 04 3 0 1.t r u ,at, so long ago as the year 1830, he un tilti t ~?I'the duties on beer and leather, and yet Zt bi l e,tt 1 4; !hose remissions would not compensate I'M - 'allied to the revenue by the increase on I lls "' II . • ' • O tw li e d• th ois•ever, the receipts of the succeedintr Ql Of t h at he had not miscalculated, and that Ois t ice se .ese duties would not have been attended i l : , .t 4t o ppo l i' te l tr.iticipatd.-(lle . ar, hear.) The Hon. Mei t il ltie 11, 1 said that his obj' coon to the in ,'llk s il t it' nt it should be continued beyond the ', N. exigencies of tho State required. But 4 h nee It cell i t e et A ° , l ' of the Exchequer) begged to say `til t , p„ ati said before, that this tax would Nete l l e e sed 'but for the ' purpose of meeting , t te li lt tt . l l- 4 the State.-(Cries of " Hear, hear.") ' l lis ke ti tit i e t4 e e when the affairs of this country, and iA til ee i t ' e re such, that taxes could not be re 't,tekfiteetowas Only when peace was restored, and at i t !Qes were met in every market of the 01 , I„,its felt necessary to relieve trade from Ntett;ith respect to the income-tax, he could Cot Para facility and cheerfulness with which it o,ith e , e exceeded the most sanguine expecte cSatsi 6, w ho had imposed it. This readiness was 00, Tt hi",, th e fact that there had been no petitions tt lid k,il lsa,, l t , -4e le-tex. If' the Hon. and Learned Gen \, " te n et t. ;. through the records of evidence, ) tt i Lali he esould find any proof of its un- O t , ( e l t f th e ho ho would rather see negative tes• i h , 1 44 , 4, c oncurrence of the people in this tax. l it ILwee i ti ;Topic were unwilling to pay the tax \ k're h ut ?, durst taxation was always more or less ei t :le eii _l_ie thought it the least unpopular . of any ~ b lth e tt e lliosed. He would not agree in any re ,i.itiihthe te .endment. If the tax must be re-mo • 1,1 e i tilllnimum of income subject to taxation \t l :llie,„ e an at present, then there would 1 11 At ; Off in the revenue, and the th tin tati c ° lld not b e a bl e t o ma k e th ose reduo \ittltY h I 1 on articles of general consumption 11 % 1 54 Proposed. The only other course left "1 1I tto tp tte e ' t l e s i t .s ,to increase the burden on those pos- Aed t o ~ incomes, which the Government was Nh No th tt t r_. . The Hon. Gentleman had no right ), we eb ,e tt , e, u7 income-tax would be continued be oeckell,flti'llot earths income-tax to reduce its amount during that to ,„ ec prudent or politic. They had en le e ftl e ,'"alie the income-tax subservient to the llt k l ltse t ‘tt ,ic il le;P w 4 ,er. o in h an by reducing taxation upon some Con k‘t°4l l; t• tli n e er h e io ln u t s o e had affirmed remendutinhepplolicy \t kt It . 11, 3 ' a majority of 238, and he thought it ~, t 4„ beerefore, to go into any lengthened de °ll4'ell ""h regard to 0 , e iell et, proof h o, it t bro the articles, the taxation upon which 1 8'Id i 'ltsel l 'elsed to reduce, he would not now say ' 4 Oaf ' qe lion. Gentleman ,e 1 t r to, on. and Learned objected t‘" 1 br ow ' do so in a more fitting manner, when Yhbpeoght seriatim under the notice o ' f the I tV e aet e ,the whole, therefore, lie considered that I .4 the n" could not have made a better arrange titii,ll • P l , f64 l 4l t t it t e o P e r e i rit, and he should . resist the amend arte,,"ll. Member for Llskeard. k\ k ilt, kh ttli A thought the Right Hon. Gentleman hwt t tee eh e rlY unfortunate in his attempts to an -4114 w Li tt. of his Hon. and Learned Friend the N t rip„ Il e „ 'eard, particularly in those arguments ; ( 4, 4 4 t e . od er ld Learned Friend had used against N t °4 l ,lt r „ e of dealing with the finances of the V 4,111e, - "est have been obvious to every one that \t i th t etled or the Exchequer had throughout his „\lSe h a into details and calculations jus s‘tltitier:le he professed to entertain of the in- Nis i c'ttie l- Prosperity, and the limited duration of ?te i ,kt e .eite t o Ise spoke in general terms, and said `7 t ltl ttp titil y i X n was taken off another source of re •' e, 4 at ed i creased, and the Right Hon. Gentle- Vim easi ee this , • • titerto ..,) t p , sition by an argument which he th e 'Ought peculiarly inconclusive. M. h 'tel l 3e ar 1830 when by taking the tax off )t, situ tie ee IN t ,_malt greatly increased. The circum 1, t h e il t the tte . n were, he thought, entirely different. e\ I , eons u ‘ 11 ) on beer it was very natural to \ tl,ll 1 1 iy, t h, asption of it would be increased, and, for eAß tt i o 'alitit tax would increase in the same pro- Ke e rte tt d , the country was then recovering from a " A nte d .'Pressio n - t h ere had b een b ad harvests, ViteN th l "eFs, which led to those unfortunate A lt tlti, t ti ll . at h ad . occurred a short time previously. '',Clt t i l lt t litri rtt e a ll_r were several good harvests in sue kiN.ltel 3' h i 7 and commerce had improved. At kte s 're t , a te e , y ead several good harvests, unbroken 1 , h e th e al in trade and manufactures, end a likle j i . 1 1to ttiti ci 4 rse might, in the natural course of kki ti l , tl fli i 4 . Wed. But how were they to meet ,5t t, Lilt th . e knew not ; nor could he see much r,„ , i:;, - ix,,,, , - budget of the Right Hon. Baronet. tl. t4: 1 0:14 . ' d ecline giving his support to the rim y liN e 'tee e a nd Learned Friend. lie did not like Ai h e 4 ; h " 41 Y better than Po t t elf h u g °' that Hon. and Learned (~i ~, o r d thought the finances of the country 11 ' ltedere oho. abolition or reduction. If the in -11„ hq n "shed, some new tax would be pro kitltoi"wr , "'Add not see, under present eireum t , led th at less oppressive could be levied. k tti It find the tax pressed most un %%!'s k 441 , at there ,to ' 4 0,„ Snip o „ were abundant in 1'14.,,,,,„ t„ ) , , ..Pr its operation, but he amid not kl;' , . qti t er system in of modification or elaseifica ki4ol4, Alen, `-'„ roes and salaries could he devised, O t si t h t .t,) he Subjected the operation of the tax some qNle t „ tt t l o hoextrbjected to it, and others included \ t \ lie d dimp osa rted• The income which a man 4 1elll t i Pl O3 , no d. le varied according to circurn• y e „, tte ,,erl h,,T t eee of knowledge on the part of 4t ) th‘le t ,,, l "l, t ") the Government-no degree of care yl t ec i ltild ' d e al to overcome that difficulty. But 0 1 0,0 Rff„: 3 , this themselves. Each man knew , te, t ,, lll ltt . t Liite r e"`;• ,,4 lf they founded their calculations 1 5 A Ate oh. ". not upon income, they would k N Ilk l id Jee t of this tax, they would arrive at ik 'Wee 441 co t ed r • )41 t ub Lam • 'early expend; but all attempts le l llel s teON t, h Preperty would end in doing what L , ,,tt, kti t tle et 4l der ed - 'B",,e,qually unjust and oppressive. But "%le gibe ohi- 7 , s tem of taxation on expenditure t4t sl 7 %t o . ' ; e ah e ' they had in view of having a well % tip %/4, t1 to s ' l iar' would judge for himself what tiNrop t , i, t it,, end, and on that expenditure, be it c,, 4 I, rl tit ion to tate would require him to contribute ht 01, l'Y Of , the exigencies of the State. That was be ttalth io‘axation, and he concurred with the °ll ll4 S aYirg that this mode of taxation d to cases of great emergency, such as _ THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1845. wax, or perhaps emergencies equal to war in a time of peace ; and it was the duty of that House to form a scale ~f taxation that might fall on expenditure, and fall on it in such a manner that all might contribute their just proportion. 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 be kept within due limits. His limit would 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 . .hat at the end of three years they would get rid of that most oppressive and most unjust tax. They might have done this, if, in the filet 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 lion. 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. He (Lord flowick) did not won der that the members of the Government shrank from answering that question, because it was impossible that hey could make any calculation of the burden which would not be revolting to the public feeling. But though they dil 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 lie could not give the actual amount of the tax upon sugar, but he said this—that 245,000 L 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 Right 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 - a,g,gerated, why did they not submit their own calcula tions 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 Howick) 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 particular 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 finance a of the empire in such a state as to give every reason for a well grounded confidence 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 h e hoped that, before the next general-election, the electors of England would well consider this—whether this odious tax—ta 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 roost 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 satisfac tory as might have been expected from him. He asked the House to record their opinion of the income-tax. fie 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. 11. Inglis) believed that there was not ono in that House but who thought that the 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 got up to state his own personal opinion that the tax ould be removed at the end of that period. Let 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 proper.) , 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. H. 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 1501., 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 lion. Baronet would so materially benefit the poor man as some Hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. Certainly the le duction 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 3,500,0001. Now he could not but think that a certain portion of that sum might have been thrown back up m 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, he 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 eharitable 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, lie slid not think there was any political economist who would object to relieving these charities from, in a tuitional point of view, th exceedingly low duty imposed on them. No man 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 insignificance of 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 75,0001. per annum. It was an exceedingly small sum, in a national point of view, but when applied to purposes of spiritual charity the amount became of some importance. He wa not aware that he had 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 shoukl feel it his duty to support the amendment. Mr. WARI3UItTON said if the income-tax could be adjusted without diminishing the receipts of the Exche glee-, it would, no doubt, be an improvement in principle of an income-tax. But ho thought the arguments of the Right Hon. Baronet were tatiacious. The principle he laid down upon which they ought to levy the income tax, he understood to he 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 gei,tion of the Right Hon. Baronet were adopted, they would tax the perpeusnt at the time when he 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 ver,ion 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 say 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 ir4erest, which 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 much 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 be 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 make 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 incomo•tax so keg as his 12,0001. 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. H e 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 certain 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. Lard 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 diiided 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 IV eat 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 ho would still adhere. 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 permanent property, which was enjoyed without toil and without risk. Ile thought it would not be difficult to establish a satisfactory distinction, for the country would not look at very nice pc:ints of gradation. Sup pose there were a per centage 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 Hon. 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 Hoe. and Learned Member for Liskeard was not in his place, as he wished to ask who would vote with him (Mr. C. Buller) ? Tho Hon. 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. Manes) thought there was no use in the discussion. The time had gone by for it, and that was when the Right Hon. 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 ; and 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 b, 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 had accepted the income-tax. The 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 nel cessity for continuing tfio tea, Which should be repealed in threo 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 Eight lion. Gentleman, :(Sir Peel) stated that the revenue of the year ending sth of April, 1546, 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 H. Peel's showing, there would be an increase of 300,000/. As to corn, the Right lion. Baronet had not taken that into his estimates - Sir R. PEEL said that the revenue on corn last year was 1,050,0001„ but in consequence of the good harvest, he calculated it at a less amount by 500,0001. for next year. Mr. HAWES said that he would be content to deal with the surplus of 1,400,0004 And he thought that with that balance in hand the reduction on articles of trade might be effected without the income-tax. The auction 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 lion. Bar net 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., anti 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 which rendered its first imposition necessary. He always paid the utmost respect to what fell from his Honourable Friend the Member for Ken''al (Mr. Warburton), but he could not agree with him, nor with those other persons who thought that the system of direct taxation ought to be 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 appeared that the amount of direct taxation was 20,000,0001., that of indi rect taxation, 30,000,000/. ; and if to tho 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 whole taxation. It was impossible to say that this tax would be removed in three years, and, therefore, he thought the Hormurable 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 endute it if commerce and trade languished, and profits diminished, and the means of employing the working classes les sened. He 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 in 1845 ; and ho was, therefore, perfectly consistent in voting for the motion of his lion. and Learned Friend. Unless a case was trade 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. He thought it would be much better to bring specific and definite charges against the income-tax than to bring forward general charges against it. Ho 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 restul 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 Llon. Bnanet, that persons should ha taxed only for the amount of their income above 1504; that a person, for instance, having 1551, should be taxed only on the 51. above the 1501.—(Hear, hear.) He likewise agreed with him, that a distinction should be teed° 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 rJonsent. He thought that the effect of the budget or the Right Honourable Baronet would be to extend the ; ,ndustry of the country. He had no doubt it would be found exceedingly bene ficial to many large branhes 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 anything, 'they meant that the manufatire ing, commercial, and trading interests should by 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 lion. and Learned Gentleman.—(Hear, h:ar.) Mr. HUME thought that the financial statement made by the Hon. Member for Lambeth ought not to he mixed up with the present motion, for the Right. Hon. Baronet told them he did not want to impose the income-tax for financial reasons, and had shown that up to April, 1846, including the income-tax that would be due then, he would have a surplus of 1,400,0001., 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 riot find anything like that out of the ordinary revenue of the country, which was about 50,000,000/. No less than 19f millions were derived from the Customs, certainly not a direct tax; 131 millions from the Excise, not a direct tax. The Stamp; duty was not a direct tax. The only direct taxes were the land and the assessed taxes, amounting to 41 millions. Including the income-tax there would be 9. millions of direct taxes, but leaving out •the income-tax there were only 4} millions raised from direct taxation in stead of 20,000,000/. One of his great complaints since ho had the honour of a seat in that House was that the taxes were levied from articles used by the poorer classes, and taxation. httt p l r n o p F e r r t a y n c w o a a s n d a l i m n o ß s t o i e g n it t i i m rel t y he e g x r e e m a p t t bul f k ro o m f 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 721 per cent., that of mixed direct and indirect taxation 10 or 12 per cent., and the rest he would allow to be direct taxation. He did nut 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 be 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 lion. Friend the Member for Oxford said, that the spiritual destitution of the people ought to be provided for ; but he (Mr. Ilume) thought there were sufficient funds 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 he 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 Friend, the Member for Lam beth, 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. • He 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 lie (Sir R. Peel) had :Tiede there would re main a surplus. The lion. Gentleman had said that he (Sir R. 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 ho (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 609,000/ to be received on account of China ; but that supposing Parliament did not grant the coliti 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 .hey would have a revenue of 51,100,0001.—that was supposing the property-tax was not continued. If, however, the House continued the income-tax, then there would certainly be a surplus of 1,400,000/. NJw the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth seemed to be bewilder. d about the balance in the Exchequer in April, 1845. lle said that at that period the Govern ment would have a balance in the Exchequer of upwards of 5,000,000/. Now the lion. Gentleman could hardly b. 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 another portion would go to the increase of the balance in the Exchequer, and in that respect certainly the Go vcrnment were in a more favourable position than in former years, but that surplus could not bo considered fairly applicable to the services of the current year. On the whole, therefore, he thought that the lion. Gentle man's calculations and his reasons for opposing the in come-tax were altogether without foundation. Th; I-lon. and Learned Gentleman who had brought forward m of en th d e menthad Government,ma d in e st a ead sP o e f ee c h onc e lU n d d in em g n w in it g h o th n e e pa the goal c iri a' st 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 150/. a year should be the zero of taxation. Nov, 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 the sum of 4L 10e. The meaning of that was, that he should be enabled to require from the Exchequer deduction of 4/. 10s. He (Sir R. Peel) had nut the means exactly of knowing, but he would suppose that 240,000 persons contributed to the income-tax, and sup posing that each of them were to deduct 41. 10s., the' would amount to upwards of 1,000,0001 ; and every man in that case would be obliged to state what his income was. A new process would, therefore, hara to be in troduced. Now before the House adopted such e proposition, he hoped they would seriously con sid;•r the course which they really ought tt pursue. He now came to what he must call the main question in the case, and that was, whether they should confirm a resolution in favour of the present Bill. He was free to admit that it was open to the House to con sider 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. He thought it but fair that it should be considered open to the House to discuss the question ; and those who had voted a g ainst 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 tax 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 node. 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 there would be a surplus of 2,000,000/, and it was with respect to that that the Hon. Gentleman opposite had declaimed in such eloquent terms. Now, with respect to that surplus of 2,000,000/, the Government proposed to remove altogether the duty on raw cotton, the excise d upon 350 of or skill, 3 6 0 t o o t her removeartio articles, d duty on glass, to abolish r estrictions on manufactures thewohtiyehopporeavaeunotedtions,a n application altogether making a reducti on in taxati on of 2 , 000 , 000 /. an 1 upwards. He (Sir Robert Peel) still remained of opinion that it would be difficult to apply 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, who 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 cotton,and 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 3id. 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, United while States that thereupoii raw cotton was was no duty on raw cotto n, neither was there in Ger manycotton &c. , was little or Switzerland • in France there was a duty, but immense.or ln n t o h th e ing, 1 *alba() was a dra wback that made up the eqqivaleut. He 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. If the House thought the remission unwise, they would propose some other which would come 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 (in glass was politic. With respect to that article there had been no clamour ; and he would 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- I taining it, it was one of the strongest arguments which could be alleged for its abolition.—(Hear, hear.) Ile ventured to predict that after the sth of April they would find a very extensive competition in tho 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 five articles with hard names and inquire ehat 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 breught 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 felt 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 ? (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 mi.,Tht be adulterated. He could tell the Honourable Gen tleman that alum was an article which en tered into many important manufactures in this country, and that there was no article against the duty on 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 fur the alteration. Well, then, they remitted the duty on bark, on hides, on skins, on oils, on indigo, and on staves, articles which were all of great import trice to the manufacturers of this country. ['he total amount of duty remitted was about 350,0001. 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 bad 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 as the probable gain for cott on-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 the West Indies almost to free competition of An.erican staves, admitting them at a duty of 74 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 he able to compete with Ame rica and other countries." Was it, then, any test of this be. uefit 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 1,600,0001. of the surplus had been applied under that head. Then, a ith 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, ip 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 re'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 Hon. Gentleman could show that there were other taxes which imposed greater burdens 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 the House 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 insreasell em ployment of the manufacturing population having re iticed the burden. The immediate reduction of duty night 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 igainst 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 464 mil. lions in 1843 to 50 millions in 1844, bethought they had reason to hope . that the effect would be not only to extend the { internal industry, but also the external commerce of the coun try. A tax, on being absolutely removed, ceased to be a di rect source of revenue ; but if they increased the manufac turing 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 tmwillinguess to disturb the efficiency of this great instrument. The Hon. Gentleman admitted that tbhyanadmitting was ex pected, 11• petitions had been presented ag ainst this tax ; and there e ro us except and that the inquisition which had been co nducted throu gh t w h a a s t n th o e rationalburden would bett c c feltou n t i to ng be for leeso the officers of the stamp department ba d been attended with less of injustice and of the ap p e arance of oppression than many had seemed 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 of this 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 eqnity, 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 circum dances he hoped the House would affirm his tax without alteration. After the Right 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 lieu of the income-tax. He should for his part say that any impost that could 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 moat glaring am! unjustifiable. They had disre garded the weights which had been imposed on those who realized incomes frwas 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 leak to in case of deficiency in the revenue. Now, he (Mr. Sheil) could not give the Right Hon. Baronet credit for such stolidity, and if he would only tax his ingenuity he was satisfied that he would not find it so difficult a matter as he apprehended to discover a sub titute. Ho repeated that if the Right lion. Baronet would only tax his ingenuity, he would find the means of ac complishing 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 be re moved by a tax analogous to the income-tax ; he would im 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 incurne-tax to him. He (Mr. Sheil) bad heard of a legacy left to Christ Church Hospital. (The Hon. Gentle man was here interrupted by Members on the Opposition benches suggesting that he was wrong in the name.) Well, if not to Christ'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 14,000/. Now, if there was a legacy of 14,0001. upon a stint like this, what might not be the amount arising from the whole of the property on which this tax might tie 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-tax. By this means they might annihilate the whole of sehedule.P from the list, and yet secure the 1,225,0001. which now consti tuted the whole of the tax derived especially 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 capital. This might be true, end yet he (Mr. Shen) thosig,ht that this was no great objection when he re fected 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 (Mr. Sheil) would not pretend to institute any comparison between the Right Hon. Baronet and his po hey, 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 conclusion of the war it was remitted ; and it was only on the resumption of the war that it had been again imposed. Th e Right Hon. Baronet bad raid 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 Hon. 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 cen'.? Could the Right Hon. 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 been 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 of 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 did the Right Hon. Baronet come down to the House in the year 1812, when on all hands and 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 T reasury came down 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 mars 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 fur 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 pissed by like the sighings of an 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 had 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 night 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. (Sheil) 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, hear.) 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 first men of the world had, 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—(lronical 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 inquisitorial, if it were immoral, if it held out a premium to fraud, 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 ho 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 I%lr. 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 Peel, and they would for give him, if he ventnred 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 under stand 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 discussing. They had tried extremely hard to get information from the Government, but neither he nor any other Hon. 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 tho 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 c-tax, but, on the con trary, he believed a great deal more ha been paid than ought to have been paid. lie had a letter in his pocket from Bir mingham which would bear him out in this statement. He had consu'ted with the lion. Member behind him ('Jr. Muntz), and he believed the lion. Member could bear ont 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 although 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 1 know there are thousands in this town who will 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 schedule D are sub ject to the scrutiny and the catechisation of a Board of Corn mis.ioners ; and he ventured to say that if Members :of that or the other House of Parliament had to go before comini.sioners to be scrutinised, in the same way as tradesmen, the income tax would not last a month. Why they had lost sight of the moat 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 he 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 aeighbours, 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 nay 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 both 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 subjeet, but they felt the grievance never theless. In London, certainly, they had had very little surcharge ; but they had heard what had been ping on in Bir mingham ; and he could speak of the North of 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 you get from Blue stone? We understand you keep two gigs ?—docs your wife sometimes use one of them? You keep two horses too, and sometimes ride them with the saddle?—does your wife some times use one of them?" Then again a hair-dresser had to go before the Commissioners.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but the hair 'dresser 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 ?—1 use it fur the purposes of n.y business. Ilo s a o . many people's hair do you cut in the course of the year .2 many ladies, and so many gentlemen. What do you charge of : them ?--Perhaps a shilling. Then you get tenpeneeat least profit ? Do you not use your public room somet,imt e o hich these so metimes for domestic purpose; ?" That was the sort of questiounin ' e people were subjected. But beforetheyoe Pits whether they had ', d the appeal, mak they were celled upon to state their , more places of business than one, and ' whether they had more 3 partners than one, and how hmoatir'is'. What was the amount of distinguishing the amount which belonged to each capital employed in ea c partner, s ;lid detailing the annual in terest and the a mount of profit due to each. Ile knew a ge ntleman who was surchar g ed 5,000/. ; notwithstanding he had honestly made a return of the amount of his profits. lle consulted a Member of that House on tie subject, but nothing c ould b e done for him, and be was told that he would have to take his I . .aoks before the Commiesioners. He ref, rred, bow e, paying the fine to disclosin g the secrets o f his trade. N v To e w r • he thought this was a grievance which Hon. Gentlemen did not well understand in that House, or they would not have the Right Hon. Baronet at the he; d of her Nlajesty's Govern ment making 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 tar as the free traders were concerned. They were merely brought forward to keep up the delusion out of doors, that they were free- traders on the Ministerial side of the House, and thus enable them to continue the existence of monopoly. What did Mr. Macgregor say of the amount of revenue they might obtain from sugar ? Since Friday last, he (Mr. Cob den) had asked two gentlemen more likely to be acquaint e d nith the lubject than any men in London. lie had asked them this question. "If you wished tenet the largest amount of revenue from sugar, giving sugar at the same price as the Government intend the people to have it, how much revenue - would you get, and still give the sugar at that price ?" " Six 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 o f th e grea t es t mar k ets o f 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 scheme in the markets 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 an 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. He thought it rea sonable to say to the farmer, " You must supply your horses 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 1842, when he said, " There are taxes which tress 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. Rus sell) thought they were bound to consider whether this tax was as just, as equal, and as little vexatious as they could make 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 for a short time, and that all the inconveniences would depart with the tax itself. They were imposing it on grounds which made it almost impossible 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. lie could not understand for a moment the objections of his lion. Friend the Member for Kendall ; who said that when the income-tax ceased the inequality of the tax also erased. 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 he no ineome 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 - e tion. The Prime Minister hail been asked if he would con 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.) He (Lord J. Russell) had heard the Right Hon. 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 —(Laughterl —certainly the Hon. Member had been com pletely tamed by the discipline which h:md beer, 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 Nest Indian proprietors bad been diminished. The Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stockport had said that 6,000,0001. might be obtained for the revenue from sugar, and the price not raised beyond that which the Right lion. Gentleman proposed to give it. Now they had given 750,000/. a-year, in per petuity to time West India proprietors by giving them 20,000,000/., and if they gave this country, 1,000,0001., they would still have 5,000,00(11. 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 2,000,000/. of benefit to the West India planters. Those who had suffered from the incnme.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 public, and to give a still greater impetus and vigour to com merce, and to make a just and fair modification of the tax. He was not at all insensible to the benefits that would be de rived from the abolition of the duties on 430 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 Hume. 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 as ith 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 Right Hon. Gentleman intended to pursue.— (Laughter.) Perhaps the Hon. Member for Montrose was in the secret.—(Renewed laughter.) But be (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 once. For his ( Lord J. Russell's) own part, on the ground the Right lion. 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 from taking off ditties which were very oppressive to trade ; but in voting for it on this greund, 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 took 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 Hon. 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 wag 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 deors, 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 from the income-tax was properly applied ; he did not think this was shown, lie 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 an odious impost, to a tax generally disliked, without having any advantage from it., Were it pro. perly applied to a reduction of duties v-hich 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 time public mind, and lie did not know that a greater fraud or imposition 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 hail succeeded to power, the revenue had heen recovered. The revenue declined at that time in consequen: e 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 io addition to al' 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 1818, when they should probably have had another set of bad harvests, when it would be necessary to continue it ; and th- se Gentlemen would have to answer to the country for that continuance. His Hon. 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. the revenue, Customs and Excise were to produce 75 per cent. of t_ revenue, they must increase the consuming power of the people, and and make articles more cheap and accessible to them. He tH— should not trouble the House with many figures i o e n r this irs i t n rate (Hear, hear)—but he would cite a few in d or( of the justice of the evidence given by these gentlemen, thewhenwhat had really deficiency of the produce of the Customs and Excise in ,revenue reductionproduced of been good. The net been the cause of the improvement in it since the harvests had . from these sources was „ the e the n r e e t 1836 was 36,392,000!. 3 ; 5 5 in 6 1 4 8 6 1 9 01. upwards of one mil lion. And what occurred between the were years 1836 1,400,000 added to th e and 1340? There , numbers of the people, and 5 per cent. additional placed on the Customs and Excise duties; anti yet there was a. falling off of a million in the revenue. Now, lie would just ask the atten tion of the House to the (litre' ence in the arneutit paid by the people fur food at these periods. In the three years, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the cost of the wheat consumed by the people was 107,135,0001. In th e th ree years, 1e37, 1838, and 1839, the wheat consumed by the people cost 152,806,465/. In those three Years fifty-two millions more were paid by the people for the necessaries of life than there had been during the three preceding years when the harvests were good. They had heard also what was the corresponding falling off It, 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 years, that whenever food was dear the revenue fell off ? Hid 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 pax a most offensive impost to make up the deficiency in the revenue- caused by it ? lie could understand the inten tion to keep up the protective system if the Hon. Member for Somerset hire or Dursetshire were in power, but after the speech they had heard that evening from the Right Hen. Cientleman, he cou'd not understand his persevering in the system. That speech was a perfect free trade argument, as good a free trade speech as those his lionourab!e, Friends were accustomed to add ress who in the ease of wn ,, l, and showed that a ll the fears of those to public meetings, and he could scarcely belie v e his ears when he heard the Right Hon. Gentleman ask what had happened deckled the English grower would be r uined by the abolition of the duty were groundless. Lie thought he was every too.