The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

better in From if the axing had striven to gain the ems-
lions of the people, instead of destroying their liberties ?
Had; he done so, be would not have been left without a
friend to help him in the hour el need. (Chests.) We had
increased the expense of our establishments from 14 to 18
millions; the country had become more of a military country
In late years than ever. (Hear.) The late Chanceller of
the Exchequer bad defended the iniustios of this tax
because other unjust taxes existed. He (Mr. Hum-) was
prepared to prove that not a single tax existed which was
not unjust ; and was this matter of surprise, after the wit-
dom which had presided over the exchequer of late years
(Laughter.) It woo now for the house to declare—fird,
whether they would have this tax at all ; and then, what
should be its duration. Most important wax it to cramei-
pate our colonic a from the tuition endured by them; this
must be done, if we would keep them our friends. Let
them govern themselves in the cheapest way they could.
He was anxious to see both the army and ordnance reduced ;
and with these views, he would not conseut to the re impo-
sition or this tax for more than one year. If there were enema-
lies, let them remain at present e in committee he should be
prepared to move as an amendment that the tax should
only continue one year.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, in explanation,
The Marquis of GRAN BY said there were two ways of
making up the existing deficiency of three millions-either
by reducing the exp-aditure, or adding to the taxation
Of the first be feared there we little chance after what he
had beard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; on the
other hand, it appeared an ineresse in the estimates was con-
templated. If there we. no means of making the expen-
diture and the income meet except by increased taxatiou,
the question naturally arms, what should be the nature of
that taxation ? And he felt compelled to gay on minting
upon that part of the subject, that the various budgets
which they had at different time s to consider did not tend to
simplify the difficulties which they had to encounter. The
noble lord at the head of the government, in his speech on
the budget, stated that the vicissitudes of commerce had
been very great; now he was of opinion that the
vicissitudes of the plans by whieh they ;wowed a
remedy were of equal magnitude. His proposal was for the
renewal of the income-tax for three years. Now he thought
all parties in the house were agreed as to the irjustice a d
impolite, of that measure. The first objection to the tax
consisted in finding what was the nature of the income to
be taxed, and discovering upon what principle incomes
could be taxed which were derived from so many various
sources. An hon. member had told them that incomes de-
rived from professions should not be taxed to the mime
amount as incomes derived from realised property ; but he
thought that en far from improving the tax by the proposi-
tion which he had submitted to the house, that it would aggra-
vate the barbarity and increase the injustice of the measure.
Re felt himself compelled to remind the house and
the country that the party with which he had the honour to
act had not been the cause of the extravagance which had
been committed. That party had told them (the govern-
ment) that the consequence of their removing 8,000,0001. of
taxation would be, that they never could get rid of the in.
income tax. However, he sincerely hoped the lime would
come, and that it was not very distant, when the people of
this country would consider the question of free trade lode-
pendently—that they would apply their free and unbiassed
judgment to it, and pronounce their opinion as to whether
the free-trade principle had been for the interest of this
country or not. (Hear, bear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no doubt he had himself opposed the income tax upon its
introduction by the right hon. gentleman in 1842, because
he thought it would operate unequally. (Hear, hear.) That,
he conceived, was a good ground of opposition to the tax,
but, as it was to be submitted to, he thought it best in the
shape in which it stands. lie thought the circumstances f
the country fully justified the renewal of the income tax
for three years, and that it could not be for a shorter period.
Every tax pressed unequally. How could it be otherwise ?
It pressed very unequally upon a person with a email fa-
mily and one with a large family. That was felt so much
when the income tax was originally imposed, it was found
that attempts to remedy it led to great fraud. The right
hon. gentleman (Sir R. l'eel) proposed the income tax in
' the most equitable manner, and upon the most equitable
principle. it could be proposed—namely, regardless of the
circumstances of the property of those from whom it was to
be exacted. lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) firmly
believed that any attempt to deviate from that system, or
make the tax more just, would only lead to inextricable con-
! fusion—to fraud and waste of time, while the imposition of
it would be inevitably
.made doubly odious. The inquisi
Wrist nature of the tax, it should be admitted, was great ; but
if it:was imposed with reference to the circumstances of the par-
ties, the inquisition into those circumstances should necessarily
he more rigid, and therefore much more objectionable than
the present system. When the tax was originally proposed
all those circumstances were fully discussed. Mr. Pitt took
them into hie consideration, and distinctly said that no one
should object to the tax, whether he derived his 5001.
a year from land, from his profession, from his
trade, or any other occupation. Mr. Pitt held it ins-
posible to impose a different rate upon property
derived from any of those sources, and that it would be un
just to the public creditor. If that was so, how could it be
just now that schedule A t the annual value of lands, tine.
menu, &c.) should be more highly taxed than any other
species of income ? No deductions whatever were made from
the taxes to which real property or tenements were
subject—oo deductions for repairs, or in consideration of
the leads or tenements having been unoccupied, or
that the rents remained unpaid. Landlords were not
exempted on any of those grounds, either from the payment
of general taxes or the three per cent. income tax. (Hear,
hear.) The property included in Schedule A, in reality,
paid a higher rate of taxes than any other, and it could not
Justly be subjected to an increased amount of taxation now
in favour of other incomes. Realised property was subject
to a variety of taxes from which personal property escaped.
The pressure upon the whole was much more equal than
hon. gentlemen allowed; and taking every circumstance.inte
account, he believed the most sceptical would be compelled
to admit that this tax, as well as taxation generally, was far
more equal than it was described. He did not assert or be-
lieve that taxation was in every individual case equal; but
yet he thought no species of property should be
exempted or privileged in respect of taxation. But
in order to effect that object they must not look to any one
tax alone • to do that would be utterly useless—they should
refer to the general taxation, the pressure of which should
be made to bear equally upon every description of property
fairly and equitably. He would not go farther into the ques-
tion but he hoped that his hon. friend would withdraw his
proposal and allow the house to proceed to the main business
of the evening, and to decide the question whether they
were to have en income tax or not.
Mr. F. T. BARING would detain a house a very short
time whilst he stated his views on the question. The propo-
sition before the house was one of great importance. He
did not agree in the suggestion of the hon. member for
Montrose, and big objection to it was because he coneidered
it necessary that five millions and a half should be supplied
by taxation, and he did not think it could be raised if the
income tax were to be suppressed. What he understood
the hon. member for Cockermouth to ask was, whether the
house would put the tax one fairer footing than that upon
which it was now levied before they consented to go into
committee. He concurred in that proposal. The hon. mem-
ber did not salt the house to diminish the amount of the
tax. All ho asked for was, that it should, be levied in a
fairer manner than it now was. If the house should be of
opinion that the tax could not be levied more fairly than it
now was, then the only course left for him would be to sup-
port the revenue by voting for the tax in its present and
worst shape. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was true that the
proposal before the house was not without its emits,
nor did he mean to commit himself to its details in all their
rigour. But putting that consideration aside, it was the
imperative duty of the house to devise the means of making
the tax fairer. (Hear, hear.) If the house rejected the pro-
positiou of the hon. member for Cockermouth be should not
vote for that of the hon. member for Montrose ; but he
should deem it his duty to support the proposition for im-
posing the tax with all its present odium. (Hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ said the right hon. member for Portsmouth
bad done a great kindness to himself and his country by the
speech he bad just made.
Mr. J. WALTER, who spoke amidet much confusion, said
if an income tax was required to maintain the credit of the
country, at least it ougkt to be levied on fair principles.
Divide, divide;" and confusion.)
Mr. G. ROBINSON mmended the government to
accept the proposal of them . member for Montrose, and
agree to take the income tax for one year certain.
enter into an inquiry as to the best and cheapest mode of
raising the revenue, with the legate incunveuience and injury
to the commerce and manufacturers of the country. He
would tell the government that if they persisted
in
their proposal to take the tax for three yearn they would
drag with them many members who were un-
willing to vote against them, and who would thereby for-
feit th it p 'polarity with their constituencies, and be placed
for the future in a precarious situation. (" Hear," and
laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL would state to the house what the posi
lion of the ministers was. In the year 1842 parliament agreed
to impose an income tax, for the double pupate of supply-
toga deficiency which existed in the revenue, and of enabling
the ministers to try an experiment whether the removal ell
certain duties would not improve the revenue, by giving a
fresh spring to commerce. Both of those objects were ful-
filled most amply, the deficiency of the income was made up,
and the revenue increased in consequence of the remission of
duties producing a great influx of commodities. The
government in 1845 again renewed the income tax,
off at the same time a large amount of customs dutite=
excise on articles of consumption. In the two epochs no less
than 7,000,0001. of times aid duties were remitted. Sines
that period the country had not enjoyed the same prosperity
—adverse circumstances had occurred which were totally in-
dependent of the remissioa of taxes and duties in 1845. The
' revenue arising from the consumption of malt and spirits
fell off in one year to the amount of 1,300,0001 The question
now was, whether, under these circumstances, the govern-
ment might not very fairly and reasonably propose the
renewal of the income tax for another period of three
years. The hon. member for Montrose said he could not
admit of the reasons for renewing the tax, because there might
be reductions effected in the expenditure of the country by
reducing the estaolidaments of the army and navy. The
hon. member for Nottinghamshire stated his opinion to be
that those establishments could not Welly be reduced, but
that some other coo eof taxation might be proposed. With
respect to the opinion of the hen. member for Montrose,
without adverting more particularly to facts which were
sufficiently notorious, he would only observe that the govern-
ment had not asked for more than was granted in the year
184,5, when,the greatest tranquillity prevailed on the con-
tinent. Such being the fact, be did not think, in the
I present date of Europe, that large reduction/could be made.
(Hear, Mier.) lie was glad to hear such an expression
of the sentiments of the house—because he held it to be
quite unnecessary to say more upon this point than merely
to refer to what the sewspapen daily reported respecting the

state of the various countries of Europe. (Hear, hear.) gee
the hon. member for Nottingham told the house that some
other mode of taxation must be resorted to. Now, !ethos*
in 1842 be had been of opinion that it would be better els
raise additional revenue by new duties, yet, in answer to
such a proposal at the present time, he must say that he wee
not prepared to reimpose or to increase duties, the reminders
of which had tended so much to the comfort and enjoyment
of the poorer classes. He did not think it would be a wise
step foe the government to propose to raise five millions
by increased excise duties. But then it wan said—
'sad to that effect the present propeiuon tended—"take
the amount you require, but raise it by direct taxation only
in a more equitable mode than by your present income tax.
Now, he must say that the presumption existed against the
proposition of the hole member for Cockermouth, that the
tax in its present proportion was first steeled by Mr. Pitt.
who, whatever might be the difference hetwoen himself and
that statesman in respect to his foreign policy, way, in his
(Lord J. Russell's) opinion, one of the greatest financial
state-men that had ever raised. Mr. Pitt showed, by rim-
soninp of great cogency, why there ought to be no dis-
tinctions made between income derived from differentsOurcee.
In 1842—as my hen. freed tne member fie Ciehermouth has
Wetted to me, I may mention it—l urged the arguments
which have been qu.,ta d against the tax ; hut I stated at the
same time that the rght hon. baronet's reasons were eon-
elusive,and ought nt themes!, s to induce the house to eecept
the tax. I admit that in 184.1, I was of opinion that the tax
might be modified—(near, hear)—but since them the more
1 have coneidered the subject—amt I can assure the has,
ne miss r for Cocke.mouth that it is not only since Moaday
Last that my right hon. fri. nil the Coancellor art the Exche-
quer has considered it—but the more I have considered the
subject, either by myself or in communion with my col-
teagui s, the more am I impreered with the impossibility of
ruakilig it in any degne more fair and equal by any meddle
cation. I will not weary the house by going in.° details se
the subject. The right hon. member fur the University of
Cambridge shooed, by arguments which have not beat
answeren, that uo auth equality can be establiele d. (Hee;
hear.) But let me state the principle on which the taxis
four led, and why I think you would be defeated
in any attempt to make it more equal. The state imposes
taxes on the ground that all esesees are equally bound to
bear its burthrus Suppose two pensma, t ach with an income
id Nell. a year : but, one says, I am peculiarly circumstanced
—mine is a presariuus income. The stale says, "We do
ant inquire into your circumstances, we only want to knave
what is your pre. nt income, and we take a certain portion •
for the purposes of the public." Suppose you were to go on
another plait, end take ed. in the pouted from the person
holding land, and only 6d. and 4d. from each of the two
other Coallit., the person deriving his income from schedule
(A) will fairly say, " You have not treated me justly, on
have added to my taxes, but you hive done so on a •
supposition, because I have only a life interest." (Hese)
In additiou to this some landholders might say, e ed,
in-
come does not go to my daughters : it is strictly entailed;
and for yooeeer children 1 have nothing te look to bat
my savings." In the some way, the argument
might be carried to much stronger cases, such as
jointures. The small landowner might urge that it Me
unfair to tax him at bd. in the pound, while his neighbour.
the wealthy merchant or manufacturer, paid only ed. Thii
instance was, in has opinion, a sufficient answer as to the in-
,qu dity of the tax. You must, then, be ...wand with one
um two things—either the injustice remains, or you moat set
about investigating what u the exact value of every mazes
income. I say, far botts risit to take the tax as it at present
stands, than by attempting to render it Inure squal to fall
into great. r chtficul y. Take the proposition now before us.
Suppose we charge property in land 81. I think it would
then be our duty to take ante considi ration all those qua-
tions tepee mg taxation, in which it is urged that the state
burdens press unfairly on the land. There is the expense
of anonyance, with the 12) per cent. charged for stamps.
If you raise their income tax te Bd., you must reconsider all
thew: enarges to which I have alluded. (Hear.) I come
now to the observation of my hon. friend the member for
Montrose as to the general inequality of theta:ea. He says
that there is hardly a tax which is not un,us. ; but he is will-
ing to give all those taxes for a single year, it government
will be prep wed to do away with al. the inequilities by the
emaimencercent of next year. (A laugh.) The hon. gentle-
man seems to think he is doing ;something very handsome,
sad reminds me, in his promised reward of the annual penes
gives, by the Privy Council to the village schools. But
however t. mpting, the government cannot amp, Ms liberal
offer. The revision of taxes may be most desirable : that is
a position winch nobody will deny. The right hon. baronet
the number for Tamworth carried it to a considerable ex-
tent, and made many improvements in taxation ; but yet
there is the rxcis. and the stamps, in which there is great
MOM (Or irnprovmenu. Bat the task is not one for • year.
Mr. HUME.—e There would be no difficulty about it.
(A laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—As for taking these taxes for on
year, I will sot consent to it. (Hear, hear.) Whenever
we are able, by careful review, to make propositions the
effect of which will be to make taxes press lase heavily on
industry, I can assure my hon. friend that 1 shall mot
happily avail myself of the opportunity; but I do think
that no government in the present state of aff .irs ought to
aeoept a tax for a single year, and under such a promise,
because I think that it they did so they would he endanger-
ing the credit of the country. (Hear, hear) I repeat that
my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
nevi r lost sight of this subject of taxation ; but this I mat
say, that the past year has been a year in which tha
most extraordinary efforts were required to meet the emer-
gency arising from scarcity of fool ; and I must add,
teat I am not prepared now or in a week's
time to propose any scheme of taxation better than that
which I now propose. I therefore with confidence, knowing
what the temper of the house was on former occasions, ask
this house to renew this income tax, as it has been proposed
by others in former times, I ask it for a period of three
years—the same period for which it has twice before
been granted. I ask it not for the purpe of makin new
armaments or of adding greatly to ouro, forces by sega and
land. I ark it for the purpose of maintaining those forces
we have, and of supporting 'he credit of he country, and to
show to the world, at this period of difficulty, that, whatever
government we may have, we are disposed to give to that go-
vernment, without distinction of party, a fair and liberalfrup-
port. (Loud cheers.)
The house divided—For the motion SI6
For the amendment l4l-175
The announcement of the numbers was received with loud
cheers by the minority.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair
being again put,
Mr. HUME said he intended, in committse, to move that
the
inc be limited to one year's duration; and unlese it wss
distinctly understood that the present proceeding was merely
pro jormo, he should oppose the going into committee that
night.e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the resolution he was about to propose was merely that
t nw
11: should
t e bwr °La r dg.
satisfied
ran,
ttedo
fixfothrealimfuinther time. The hone
E
be afforded of discussing the question of the duration of the
tan. (Bear, hear.) , provided an opportunity would
Mr. BRIGHT observed that, as the proposition for the five
per cent. income tax had been abandoned, and as the govern-
ment did not intend to propose any addition to the taxes of the
country, he shculd not persevere in his motion with regard to
tee legate and probate duties. He could notbring forward
his proposition to extend those duties to real property as a sub-
stitute for the present income tax, us it would nut produce
one half the revenue ; he thought, therefore, it would be
better to submit it as a substantive proposition at some
future time. Bat should government, during the present or
the next session, propose to add to the existing taxes, and en
alteration of the duties he referred to should not be included
in the echeme, he should then bring the subject under the
consideration of the house.
The house tnen went into committee of wars and means,
and a resolution was paned, pro forma, for eontiaaing the
present tax upon incomes fur a further period to be hereafter
limited. The house having resumed, the resolution was re-
ported, and the committee ordered to sit again on Moseley
ner‘t
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (COURT OF ROME)
BILL.
Lord PALMERSTON moved that this bill, which had
been brought down from the Lords in the early part of the
eveni, se be read a first time.
Sir R. INGLIS did not intend to provoke any discussioa
on the present occasion with regard to this measure, but as
it was ono of very great importance, he wished to impress oo
the noble lord the necessity of giving full opportunity for
discussing it—(hear)—and to express his hope that the second
reading might not be pressed forward with undue haute or
precipitation. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON proposed to fix the second reading
for Monde' ee'unigbt.
Sir R. INGLIS did not think there wan a possibility of
government b. tug able to bring it on so soon, and suggested
that a more distant day should be named, alien they might
depend upnn its being brought on for discussion.
Mr. PLUM Frith declared his iniention of giving his
most determioed imposition to the bill.
Col. SIBTHORP thought it unfair to bring on even the
first reading of a measure of this character at that late hoar
of the night.
Mr. lIINDLEY considered the bill bad been much
Improved since its first introduction into the other
house. (Order, order.) He still, however, entertained
a great objection to it.
The bill was then read a flat time, and ordered to be rued
• second time on Monday seemight
BOROUGH POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
Mr. HUTT moved for leave to bring in a hill fur authode
bag the establishment of a fund for this pientsee.—Aereed te.
NAVY, ARMY, AND ORDNANCE EXPENDITURE.
TheCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
lamination of the committee on this suhjict.
Mr. OSBORNE objected to such au important committee
being named at that late hour, and moved the adjournment
of the debate.
On the first name of the list, that of Lord Seymour, beiell
milled over,
M there werer.OSBOR n
NE obo membersjected to thiosf name,the armya co"miltinver;
that
tamed in the list nroposed by the government.
The gallery was cleared far a division, but none took
place, and Lord Seymour's name was plac.d on the eons-
mittee, as were the names of Mr. F. Mauls,
Glen Hume
Si,
Mr. G. Banks, Sir J. Graham, Marquis ot b
W. Molesworth.
On Mr. Corey's name being proposed,
Col. SALW EY said, that without wishing to obstruct the
appointment of the committee, he must, in return, esprit*
his surprise that no military men were proposed on the
committee.
CHANCELLORb"TsheeO• nal men could
best be elicited in the form of evidence.
The names of Mr. Corry, Mr. Walter, Mr. E. Elli.:ard.
conceived that
tt of the EXCHEQUER said, it had
W.Miles, Mr. J. Grotto, and Mr. Bariag wen that

_ -a