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

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1648.

wee so
bytesepsiest sad sew 4 wsiekkola et be alleada
be pHis maks ha stasill salsa his sessadaise that
this should at mos Wishes ins esegiiseation.
He felt, however, that the gusetles sew ems fishes them
in the iona of • tax of a pernesslot dissegoar. sad that it
was the bounden duty Wale WOO, be ilea the eulty from
which they had hitherto perighant shamolves lo be diverted,
sad to bring the tax at Mee 1,1. a Meal bmsbollellollke and a
more practicable form. Ho wash not say anything of the
income tax or its prinoipls. d what was necessary to
strengthen his positioso erbW:leas that the more a tax was
bjectionable in iuelf the more care ought to be taken io
render it as little es possible unnecessarily vexatious. It
had been admitted by every public man and writer
that an income tax was the last that should be imposed
in any eountry, that it was an arbitrary tax eo un-
mairto al and inquisitorial in its nature that every
doing mi.
ought defer it to the last emergency. By
se he would, when the emergency. did arrive, render
it the most power: ul weapon in his political armoury, and a
better system of national defence than all the
late fortificad
we
tions
he uld contrive. (Hear. hear.) Until a perio
mo
Would as little have thought of a minister imposing this
east of tax as of his pro posing to disband the army, or to dia-
-1 mantle the navy; but unhappily it was now established by
the authority of the right halo member for Taaiworilia budget
1042. lloweeer, the proposal of the right bon. baronet was
based on such an emergency, and was recommended by such
large promises of concomitent advantages, that the country
went slung with him, and the tan became law without any
serious opposition. But the right hon. baronet's proposal
of that dote was merited by two extenuating or rathercom
re-
commendatory features. In the Ord place, it was ac
panied by a large remission of taxation. The income tax of
1842, and its renewal in 1845, produced anus ly about
5,000,0001. in round numbers, while the taxes remitted
came to no less than 7,000,0001.,,i that taking the tax merely
as a pecuniary transaction the public were gainers by the
change. But even that would not have reconciled them to so
odious a tax, had it not also been looked upon as a means of
trying a great five d experiment, and as a tax which was only
proposed for •limited period. Such had been the extenuatbutiug
circumstances attending the first proposn of tbe tax,
now they were asked to retain it under other and very
different circumstances.
Sir It. PEEL was understood to intimate that it was in-
tended to last for five years.
Mr. HORSNIAN —ln introducing it the right hon.
baronet had used the terms three or probably five yearn, the
latter having been generally understood to be the longetost
possible duration. Now, however, it was proposthe first
ed
be renewed under different circumstances. In
place, instead of the proceedsof the tax going to the remission
of other burdens, they were to be employed in the current
expenditure of the country ; and, in the next place, inatead
of being for a period of linaPed duration, it was generally
understood that the country might look upon it as a Too-pe-
ewit burden. (Mar.) They had had an acknowledgment
from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that
effect. (Hear. hear.)
Lord .1. RUSSELL —lt is proposed for three years.
Mr. HORSMAN.—The right hon. gentleman hid said
three yeses ; but be had also intimated his belief that the
tax would be perpetual. They knew it was ono of the
established taxes; that was the general feeling. In fact,
it did nut depend on tLe will of any government, for the ge-
neral feeling of the country was in favour of direct taxation,
and their only wish, that its burden should be renered as
equal and as little oppressive as pesaille. If, then, idt was to
be pemanent, the busmen of parlia-oent was to out it into
a business-like and workable shape. As to its inequality and
injustice, every one was familiar with so many cases that
they might be set down as going through all the industrial
occupations of the country. Merchants, manufacturers, and
tradesmen, and even persons of vested capital, all had reason
to complain of the operation of the tax. lie would not weary
the hove with details, but would merely take these examples
of familiar cases, which every one must have seen ur at
their different periods of life. Thu first was an annuitant,
say a retired military or naval officer, aged 55, and living
on an income of 4001. a year. He was taxed at the same
rate as the fundholder, who derived the same income from
the funds. W, re their fortunes, then, the same ? The an-
nuitant had his income merely for life, subject to large de-
ductions for insurance and savings. The probable dura,ion
of life at that age was 16 years, and his annuity, a, calcu-
lated by the English tables, was worth 4,3(101. But the
man who drew his income from the funds had a capital of
10,000!., subject neither to diminution nor deduction. If he
died, his riches survived him ; and )et, in both these ewes,
the same burdens were inflicted. Take anothi r cue, that
of a physician, aged 45, and enjoying a practice of 5,0001.
a year. Fifteen years was the longest period that could he
taken for the probable enjoyment of such an income. The
third was the ease of a man who had neither capital nor as-
certained income, the man enteric g upon a profession in
which he was to struggle for a livelihood. This man's email
income was taxed three per cent. ; and what was it
that was taxed ? It could not be called income, because
no one could tell whether the gains of to-ilay would
be supported to-morrow, and it was perhaps that
on which his hopes of further advancement emu I. In
his opinion the aim of the legislature should be to relieve
as much as possible from taxation the poor man of letters,
the artist, and the professional beginner—men whose in-
comes were of all others the most precarious. lie believed
it to be the fact that there was no country in the world where
genius leagued with poverty endured more privations than
in England. (Hear, hear.) Sometimes it did happen that
the extent of such endurance was brought to light, as in the
case of that unfortunate artist, the late Mr. Haydon. (Hear )
With the story of that unfortunate gentleman the public
sympathivid, when a melancholy accident brought to
light the extent of his embarrassments. When too
late the public made a generous effort the family
were relieved, and the right hon. baronet the member
for Tamworth had the comfort of knowing that his benevo
lence had somewhat assuaged the bitterness of sad and
bitter moments. (Cheers.) In that case circumstances
brought to light the full amount of misfortune ; but there
were many cases of nearly equal pressure, where the parties
were loth to complain of what they felt most acutely. But it
might be mid that it was more easy to criticise the tax than
to improve it. He admitted that. But he came forward on
the present occasion because he felt that the difficulty was
not insurmountable. He thought that the tax might be
made far more just and efficient than it was at pre-
sent. (Hear, hear.) The present inequality of the
tax had never been justified, even by its proposer,
except on one ground, and that was, its temporary character.
li had stated that, if it was intended to be a pertwnent
messaere, the country ought to be salted to submit to it
in its present shape ; but that, being merely a temporary
measure, he preferred facing its difficulties for a short period
to attempting the task of equalising taxation. That
being the case, be thought it right to assume, that if it had
fallen to the right hon. gentleman's lot to make it per
ms.
neat, he would have proposed some amendments in the
details.
Sir R. PEEL made an observation which did ask melt
the gallery.
Mr. 11ORSMAN said he could point to various oesselose
on which the right hon. baronet had said that the measure
being merely temporary he preferred allowing the
unequalities to remain to facing the difficulty of equalising
them. lie came now to the question of whether the difficulty
of equalising was insuperable in the case of the present go-
vernment. In their case he was fortified with arguments
which he thought they would find it very difficult to answer
—argum eats furnished by themselves, and also precedents
which were perhaps of more importance. In 184.5, when
the renewal was propertied, the hon. member for Liskeard
proposed the following resolution :
That the circumstances under which the renewal of the Inealleallllll
la at present proposed are such as to render it exceedingly imprileks
that parliamentwill have the power of dispemang yith
cite continofuance
at the end of three years, and that it ia therefore th duty thin
house to take care that the tax be Imposed in a form in which its ope-
ration shall he less unequal and inquisitorial than it now la.
On that occasion the 'proposal was merely for three years,
and almost every gentleman oocupyiog a prominent position
in the house took part in the discussion. Oa that mession
the noble lord the present Prime Minister, expreeed himself
with peculiar clearness. The following were his words
I have always been of opinion that inequality, vexation and fraud
were inherent fa seek atam It la bnposle te deny its Ineluality,
far=m en wary slid It Is scud a person who haswane
derived trim a lookaud erste, or hem She Ards, which be could leave
to his anabolism's's, Is la we same =lea aeveon in a profess
asompon, or dras Wink wart upon his health
viiiftr of Ws orfars. srlis,rbe Wes of s re
a defect of' eyesight, swat my nesmeat be detrlved of the enamel
earning any inseam at si. late irsa au my that there two persons
were similarly ribtaisa. NAY. sr any person fairly deny that
rest relates Is awn this tax. leo one can deny that a
person wise is is ins* and who must either submit to the
payment et bile, ar Mow all bin accounts and expose all
the Inseams N whisk les Is swiss to the Inman appointed by the
sea nosy that such person le not en .jest
ir 11716-7.ne Vest Medea. And then, with regard to fraud
sal swarkia.—l believe so man who has been concerned In the ce-
lestine dads tax will lbw that his experence hew shown that great
banal wactised under thin, tax—that the man of the most Ude-
paid the =embower, and who gave his returns fairly, was
sub-
tie ignsesst loosoßlss of the tan ; while those who wished
swim the noteither fawn the sirens of doing so, or entangled
lhalmosives mid tM Oneenatlnt IS tee most expensive proceedings.
kendiptithilllN Of dr las. and having heard from the right
ses *SW might that they were faults inseparable
feces I sled base issteind that by ditlerent modifications,
midi by stliassloss Ida sow* to susertals Incomes, and by (bang.
bar perelent vaunt ton bard upon particular classes, the
tax aslebt_ls aide mars stud 'MI vexatious.
Thus had the noble lord is 1845 objected to the inequality
of the tax, but the noble lord took anthe objection of still
greater importance, which, looking upon exigency of the
present time, might be taken as a prophecy. What security,
Salted the noble lord, that in two years a strong and general
outcry might not be raised, for its retest, and then how was
the revenue to be provided for i The noble lord had con-
tended that under these circumstances the tax should be
rendered as little vexatious es possible. His (Mr. Hors-
man's) fear was, that the inequality of the tax was creating
a reaction against direct taxation. But the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had in the same debate expressed similar views.
The right hon. gentleman income, " That with regard to
the arguments against the tax, no attempt hail been
nature to answer them. It was arbitrary and unjust in its
, and unequal in its pressure." So far for the injustice
and inequality ; but on the question of placing it on a more
equitable footing, the right hon. gentleman had said, " Al-
though the income tax might be pared bo persons ignorant
of its nature, yet it could not be so mamtained ; and would it
not be dangerous to peril the credit of a country by placing
it on a basis which could not be maintained ?" He
thought that those opinions showed great sagacity, and he
trusted that he would not find them altered on
the present occasion. He now came to the means by which,
in his opinion, the difficulties attending the permanent
establishment of the income tax might be surmounted. He
found that in 1845, the returns from the income tax were as
follows. The last year of the eerie' in the return No. 100,
was 1845, and from it 1846 did not materially differ. The
returns were as follows : schedule A. 2028,721
21. • B,
324,3391. •C, 744,0191. ; 1,678.6951. ;E, 37:7691.
Total, 6,603,4431. This being 3 per cent. on the income,
represents the whole Meow as follows : 66,698,1001. 181

11,120,2901.; C,26,609,2001. ; D. 67,611,7001.• /1,11,237,8001, •
so that the whole profits under there flu schedules amounted
to 192,077,0091• in round numbers. Now that being the
whole penile of the country—
/dr. COBDEN.—lneusse.
Mr. HORSMA.N.—He called them profits merely as a
general terns. Now if he could find any means of eapio
Wising these profits., it would at least help them eo
far in areivinn at the relative proportions which should be
paid by the different schedules. Taking Schedules A and. C
at 26 years purchase, end considering B, D, and B as the
annuitants, the average value of all lives above 26, being at
four per cent. with 12 years purchase, and classing farmers
with trades, de., the result would be as follows:—Schedule
A, at 25 yean purchaee, 2.167,452,5001. ; schedule C, at 25
years pur&ese, 637,730,0001. The other three sections he
should put down as life annuities. Taking them as wort
on the average, 12 years purch tee, they would stand .—B,
133,442,4001. ; D. 637.730 0001. •, E, 134,8.53,6001. Se that
!calculating the incomes on rea ieed property at 25 yeus pur-
-1 ,nue, and thou derived from precarious sources u tile annui-
ties, we should arrive et the e .nc usion, that the whole captt..l
of the country falling under the income tax was 3,763,618,0001.
And if they tested it by other returns and calculations which
had been given of the capital of the country, they would not,
he believed. find this conclusion to any material extent in-
I correct. His object in making throe calculations was to Its-
certain whether they could nut arrivc at some sort of jude-
: ment as to the relative proportion in which the tax should
be imposed on preeerieua and perrna,ent incomes. (Hear,
hear). The present income to of 4,600,0001. being paid on
capital in the way he had just stated, woe I qual to a payment
of rather less than one and a holt' farthing. in the pound of
capital. Now, one and a half farthings per pound of capital
was 371 farthings, or rather more than 911. of inceme,or 31.16.
per 1001., calculating always at 4 per cent. for schedules
A and C. According to this calculation, if they took the
relative values of permanent property and pree,rious pro-
perty—the one as being worth 25 years purchase, the other
as an annuity
.of 12 years' purchase, about 9 I. in the pound
became the our share of the permanent property to the tax.
And for precarious property, or thou incomes charged under
schedules B, D, and E, one farthing and a half per pound at
12 years purchase is 41d. of income, or 11. 170. 6d. per 1001.
would be the just prop .rtion. The slight discrepancy be-
tween these proportion's end the previous one, of from 12 to
25 years' purchase, arose from one farthing and a half not
being the exact sum, and the decimal multiplied by millions
affected, though not materially, the result. If they com-
pared these rates of charge with those paid under the pre-
sent act, then, as 9d. in schedules A and C was to 7d. and
41d. in 13, D, and E to 7,1., so the autos received, under the
neer and old charge in eat schedule would be to one another •
and, they would *plum' as follows:
Old kale.
Schedule A 5:2,52e,721
IS 324,339
744,019
1,675,195
327,:ti9

New Neale.
02,251,170
208,510
51',0,600
1,0'10,700
210,710

£5,603,113 £3,707,720
There would, therefore, be but little difference between the
new scale and the old. He felt, however, that there were
many objections to the imposition of the tax in the way now
proposed. It altered, unnecessarily, the present charge on
farmers. and adopted the . rror in the present act of chanting
alike all incomes under schedule D, whether from trade and
manufactures or proftosions. It might be assumed that the
incomes in schedule A arose wholly from capital. Th. se in
schedule B arose from profe.sions which represented skill
and labour only, and from trades, manutec,ures, end corn,
teem, which represented I ,bour and skill, combined with
capital—he would anomie that these latter represented half
labour and half capital. Now it was trident that it could
not he an equal tax which should impose the same rate on
thew two classes of income. He calculated land income
therefore at 25 years purchase, professions at 12, and com-
merce and manufactures heween the two (intermediate), or
at 18 years' purchase, end leave schedule B as at present. The
following would be the result :
Schedule A. at 9d.
B, unchanpd 324,339
„ C, 9d.
D. take 6d. ma • wean
B. 41d.
Total
Present 1/1001:00

the tax in the way proposed should the house be of *pillion
that such a tax ought to be imposed. The principal
furor
wash the honotuable gentleman against its present
funs was that it pressed unequally upon the different chases
ot the community. He did not deny that it did so. That
such would be its effect was admitted when it wea intro-
duced, end again when it was renewed. But he did not
admit, the objection to be valid against It as a measure of
revenue, because the semen bjection applied to every other
tax. (Hear, hear). Th never yet was denied the ta:
which could be made to press equally upon all classes.
(Hear, bur). They could only counteract the pressure of
pressure of antather—(iroincal cheers and
laughter)—and so balance the whole taxation that it should
onepnresse us by
equally the
on all. The land tee pressed unequally on one
class as controdistinguisht d from another. Ss with the es-
messed taxes. Taking the favourite example of a physician
who kept kepyt
borikis eshreariegnieyeunpdonh ohrui,:iti,
cote
ptsarlihe.fiothu foundthe
f noble-
menoe
an to whom it win merely a luxury, with which he might
easily dispense. He maintained therefore, that to say that
a tax was unequal in its operation, when dis-
cussing the general question of the revenue of the
country, was no conclusive argument Rimiest it.
But unelual as he aditted theoperation of the
income tax to m
be, he would not admit it be so to the ex-
, tent alleged by those parties who felt particularly aggrieved
by it. Tne honourable gentivmin said that those in sche-
dules A and C being owners of what he called realised pro-
, perty were paying a comparatively small proportion of the
tax, contrasted with those specified in echedulss B and 1).
I But he should consider that there were countervailing circum-
stances of inequality, which ►really did tend to mete up the
difference between the two species of income. The landed
proprietor, who derived an income of 6,0001. a year fr
ntom his
property, not only paid the income taz on that ameu, bat
had to pay a large sum for repa.re, together with certain rates
and other taxes, which were not paid by the physician, and
which consequmtly tended to equalise the general burden of
taxation on each respectively. Besides, no matter what
Mppened to the landed proprietor, the assesement was
of
trued,
while the phyeician, if he found at the close
of the year that his income was only 4,0001. indeed of
6,0001 , had only to go before the commiseioners and obtain the
repayment of the tax on the additional 1,0001. He was pre-
pared to defend the tax in its present shape, even after the
speech of the hon. gentlemen (Mr. 'foramen), wham know-
ledge of the subject and great attention to it were insufficient
to get rid of the accumulated difficulties which must attend
any attempt at rendering the tits equal in its operation upon
all classes. The hon. gentleman proposed a charge of bd.
spun schedules A and C, and, dividing schedule D into
two puts—one applicable to professions,—proposed
a charge on them of 4d. and 61. respectively.
The first objection he made to that proposition was, that it
wan not only a total deviation from the principle which had
ever actuated those who had proposed a tax of this kind, but
that it was utterly inconsistent with our obligations to the
national creditor. (Hear, hear.) The proposal was, that
mosey vested in the funds should be charged Bd. in the
pound, while money vented in other ways should only be
charged 6d. ; thus directly imposing a charge upon funded
property of one.third more than was imposed upon other
property subject to this tax. This was a direct violation of
the auurance which had been given to these who had lent
their money to the public—namely, that they ehould only
be subjected to rquel taxation with the rest of the com-
munity; and the legislature had no more right to
tax funded property at a higher rate than property
vested in other securities, than it had to say to the funded
proprietor, " You shall give up a portion of your property
ter the benefit of the nation."
Mr. HORSMAN Then the exemption applit s where the
amount of stock held produces under 1,501. a year ?
I Mr. GOULBURN said, that exemption equally applied
I to other property, and, therefore, could not be urged as en
argument for taxing funded property at a higher rate. This
very point had been contested between Mr. Addington and
Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Addington proposed an income tax in
1803, and proposed to withdraw the exemption which
funded proprietors had enjoyed. But Mr. Pitt demolished
that part of the plan in ten minutes, and the house unani-
wittily confirmed the principle which he (Mr. 0 ,ulburn)
now contended for, that fuud..d property must be dealt with
the same as other property, and not charged a higher rate of
taxation. (Hear, hear.) Next, the hon. gentleman had.
complained of the hardship inflicted on annuitants, and
per-oats wheee incomes were only of limited duration, com-
pared with that inflicted on thou who had more durable
incomes ; and be had proposed to charge Bd. in the pound on
ell incomes derived from landed property, as in schedule
A. But the hon. gentlemen seemed to have a very
inaccurate idea of the nature of incomes derived from
land in this c 'wary. (Hear, hear.) Take any gen-
tleman's landed estate., or even those of very small
extent, and they would be found saddled with pay-
ments to widows and children, and the interest of money
lent on security of the estate ; and on evi ry one of shoes
charges, according to the plan of the hon. gentleman, Bd. is
the pound would be levied. The poor widow, with a most
limited income ; children deriving from land scarcely suffi-
cient to defray the expense of their education, all would have
spay Bd. in the pound. Such a regulaii .n would involve
eases of greater hardship than any to which it was proposed
to apply a remedy. It would affect clergymen, the whole of
whom, deriving their income from tithes or compositions were
chat gad under the schedule A. Then he propseed to subject
realised property te a higher charge, contending that its
endurance and capability of being transmitted to childree
ought to regulate the amount of charge thereon. He pea
posed that sixpence in the pound should be charged out
all property in schedule 1) not derived from professions.
Surely the hon. gentleman could not have reed the act. It
provided that every man living in England who derived an
income from possessions in Ireland should be assessed under
sehedule D ; and did the hon. member mean that a gentle-
man deriving 10,0001. front Irish property skould be subject
to a tee of 4d. in the pound, while an English gentleman
deriving the same amount from property in Yorkshire
should be charged 8,1. ? The same argument would apply in
reference to colonial property—if indeed estates in the colonies
could be called property at the present moment—(hear,
hear) ; but perhaps the hon. gentleman had nut thought
that worth consideration in his plan. With characteristic
fellow-feeling the honourable member had shown great ten
deniess for the gentlemen of the legal profession, and pro-
posed to tax them at one-half the rate imposed on than who
had property in the funds. He (Mr. Cioulburn) would
suggest whether the payments made to physicians and
lawyers—not small in general—were not mad i
e n me
degree with reference to the limited period during whichso
those profits were enjoyed. When au eminent lawyer, prac-
tising befure the committees of parliament, could make in
oneyear, by payments from his clients, 20,0001. to 30,0001.,
was it not probable that thou payments had seme recruits
to the uncertain duration of ouch emoluments, and that they
were not simply remunerations for services rendered, but
something beyond that, in order that provision might be
made for a period when those emoluments must cease?
(Hear, hear.) So that the honourable gentleman's proposi-
tion
amounted simply to this, they were to pay the distin-
guished members of these distinguished professions a sum
calculated to remunerate them for the short duration of
their milts, and then to turn round upon the public, who paid
these Liege sums, and ask them to pay a larger amount of I
income-tax, in order to lighten the burden on the recipients'
of those large remunerations. There was no justice whatever
in such a proposition. It was true, incomes arising I
from the exercise of professions were uncertain; but, what
could he more uncertain than the tenure of emoluments
attaching to the high offices of the state ? (Hear, hear.)
Not only did a vast amount of labour attach to these offices,
and a great waste of property and health, bat there was the
additional uncertainty arising from combinations of parties,
and from hostilities founded on different views of political
questions. (Hear, hear.) But, what would have been the
feelings of the boo gentleman, or of the hon. member for
Montrose, or of the public at large, if a prime minister had
come down to the house and said " Gentlemen, I have to
propose a tax on all incomes, which will be perfectly
equal, except that we, the ministers of the crown, will only
pay une-halt the amount we impose on others." (Laughter.)
The bon. member for Cocket mouth mould, doubtless, have
been the filet to exclaim against the atrocity of such a pro-
ceeding . (Hear.) Seeing that his proposal would leave
inequalities as great, if not greater, than those in the exist-
ing law ; and seeing that it would press with a degree of
cruelty on some of the meet deserving and helpless clams of
the community, by subjecting them to au aggravated
rate of taxation ; it would not remove any of the objections
which he (Mr Goelbutn) felt to a property tax, but would
make lu ore reluctant. to support it. (Hear, hear.)
The fact wawa large accession of income was needed to keep
up the credit of the country ; that could only be obtained b
a tax imposed without any of those limitations which each
class was anxious to bring forward for its own relief, and
which, being founded on theory, would sever stand the test
of practice. lie did not believe it possible to remove all in-
equality. T. e hon, gentleman's plan would be more cried ut
against than that now in operation ; be must, therefore, re•
slat the proposition. The continuation of the tax fur a
limited period was necessary ; and if some little inequality
did exist, it should be remembered how much relief had been
afforded to the humbler ellaWa by the removal of those taxes
in lieu of which the income tax had beee imposed. This
tax of fire and a half millions was confined tea very limited
portion of society, to those who were in the enjoyment of
comparative prosperity ; while those who had been relieved
were persons of limited income, engaged in industrial occu-
pations, who had not the means of
baringbea burdens which
might otherwise be justly imposed thm, and for whom
all felt a common sympathy. The lowest individual in the
empire was compelled to eat bread, to use sugar, and other
taxable artieles,—the taxes on which must have been in-
eres,ed had not the burden been borne by the higher and
more wealthy clarets. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. 110ESMAN explained, that he did not mean to in-
clude Irish landlords ruident in England in the clam on
whom he proposed to lay • duty of only 4d. in the pound.
It had not escaped his notice that they were assessed wider
Schedule D ; but he did nut think this the time for entering
into minute details.
Mr. HUME onsidered the income tax bad in itself. It
was ridiculous to say it was anything like just and equal;
but be regretted the hon. member for Cockermouth had
now brought forward his proposition; for the ques-
tion was, simply, whether they would consent to an
income tax or not ; and ii so, what should be
its amount and duration, He, therefore, hoped the hon.
gentleman would withdraw his proposition. (Heh
ar, hear.
dozen
lie (Mr. Hume) bad recently Iron in company wit a
political economists; they all differed es to the plan of an
income tax; and was it Seely that this house could be brought
to agree on such a subject ? It had been erroaeously stated
that this tax fell only on the rich and middle classes. To
this amertion he would oppose the authority of the First
Lord at the Treasure, who had declared, in 1842, that it was,
in fact, a tax on the productive daises at large. (Hear,
hear.) Nothing but the extravagance of the ministry
rendered this tee necessary. It was much better to
secure the welfare and stability of our institutions—aye, a
the throne itself—by sAt bordeaing the people beyond their
power of endumnee. (Hem.) Wmad it not have boa