The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1851.

of such a nature u to benefit the country, and he should not I
feel justified in professing to relieve annuitants without ex-
tendiuo relief to the professional elms. Schedule E related
to official incomes, and he thought it but fair that these
also should be dealt with in the same manner as annuities.
He could not help thinking that the insertion of alterations
such as he proposed would leave any subsequent alterations
that mixht he necessary in the schedules a matter of com
parative facility. The hon. member concluded by pro-
posing the insertion in clause 2, line 7, of the words, after
the a " granted," " so far 03 the same are expressed in
the schedules to this art annexed, and subject to the rro-
visions therein contained," being the first portion of his
amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
there was another amendment, upon which they could dis-
cuss the principle, and that it would he more desirable to
take that course than to waste the time of the house in a
diwussiou on mere words. The hon. member for Boston
propowil to have schedules A and 11 untouched ; but with
regard to schedule C would give an exemption in the case
of life annuities, which he would not give in the
case of lite interest out of land. Fur schedule I)
he claimed a redaction of one-half, although trade
could not be said to be suffering depreseion at the
present moment. Schedule E he also proposed to
r.oluee one half, but, taking the proposal as a whole, he
Chancellor of the Exchequer) diet not think it was ono
that would go down with the house. Ile certainly thought
that the convenient way would be for the hou. member to
liritig up his amendment as a proviso.
Mr. hPOONER would support the insertion of the words,
as eetteurrently laying the foundation for future alterations.
Mr. HENLEY feared that if the course recommended by
the right hon. gentleman were adopted, the opportunity for
alteration would he lust.

'1 he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared
that he had suggested the count iu good faith. He thought
th it if he took any advantage of it he would be unworthy
of the position he held in that house.

Aftt:r some further conversation the amendment was
put, and negatives' without a division.
Mr. HUME nose to move that the duration of the tax be
limited to one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry
by a select committee into the mode of a•sessiag and col-
lecting the tat ; and whether the injustice of levying the
same rate of charge upon terminable as upon perpetual an-
nuities. and upon fluctuating and varying incomes from
trades and professions as upon fixed incomes from real pro-
perty, cannot be greatly modified or altogether removed.
Ile said that in any ease he should have voted against the
amendment of the hon. member for Boston, as he thought
it would be impossible to do justice to all the great interests
concerned without careful consideratior. Ilia view
was that the tax should be renewed for one
year, and in the meantime all its inequalities
and injustice might be considered, while none of our great
nomniercial transactions would be disturbed. His com-
plaints against the tax were non -city. In Ist!, when
:sir E. l'eel brought forward his proposition he (Mr. Hume)
nanplainetl of its injustice and inquisitorial character; but
he was then as now an advocate for direct taxation.
When last he hail made his proposition for a limitation to one
year the majority voted against him under the impression
that so many were the imperfections RN to necessitate imme-
diate inquiry by the government. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer voted against him tor that reason.
The CUANCELLOIL of the EXCHEQUER denied the
motive.

Mr. HOME—WeII, no matter, that was my opinion.
(A laugh.) Ile wat now determined, to prevent misun-
derstanding, and in order to teat the feeling of the house,
to propose that the tax should be limited to one year, the
internal to be speut in neer...try inquiries into its inequali-
ties by the government. At the ',ante time he begged to
repeat that he was as much against indirect taxation as
ever. He objected to it, among other thin" from the
various profits which its operation caused to hoe paid by the
eonsumer. The neetwaity of payiug all the duties in advance
placed all the wholesale trade iu the hands of large capi-
talists, and the several hand* through which it aubst-
quently passed all levied profits on the consumer.
Ile was informed that 30 per cent. was added to the prime
cost of articles consumed by the people by indirect taxation.
Therefore it was that he preferred direct to indirect taxes.
He was favourable to the removal of the malt tax, which
raned the price of beer, led to adulteration of that neces-
sary beverage of the working mon, and promoted the con-
sumption of spirits. He was also anxious that the taxes on
hoop., soap, paper, and all other articles of comumption,
'Mould be removed. He Was favourable to a property tax,
but he would include every class of property, without ex-
ception, down to the lowest farthing. (Hear, hear.) And
for this rms.'', that by excluding any large part of the
people from the operation of the tax, and thereby making
thorn indifferent to it, you gave to the minister an advan-
tage which he ought not to possess. Ile believed, there-
fore, that great benefit would arise from substi-
tuting one general and compreho usive system of
direct taxation, which should euilorac, all davits fairly, ,
fur the present systi In of indirect taxation. (Hear, hear.) I
Let it not be supposed, then, that his object was to get rid
of this tar, on the contrary, he would make it applicable
to all. Partly, no doubt, from the increase in the national
debt, but in part also from thriftless expenditure, the!
public burdens had increased f or beyond what the Illa.S of :
Zoe people were in a condition to hear, and the result of
indirect taxation wan to like, a far greater share of such
extra burden upon the middle and working claws than
upon the capital of the country. lle knew it was commonly
advanced as an argumeut, that the capital of the country '
having largely increased, the people were better able to pay
taxes. But that was altogether a mistake, arising from the
aupponition that it was the capital that paid the tax,
which was nut the case. Since 1793 we had increased the'
debt, 17 our inistaken policy and our military operations !
agaiust liberal principles in France, by 600,000,08 M.; but
far be it from him to say, that basing incurred the liability
of paying interest on that amount, we should not discharge
it. (Hear, hear.) Within the aline period the capital of the ,
country had i nereaseal fmm 60,009,00 a to about la ouo,ooot, 1
taking it on the account of the assessment to the property
tax—in addition to the large abatemeut fur sums under
156/. a year; making altogether, as he believed, an increase
of two-fold. But did capital pay more than it formerly did, i
except so far as regarded its proportion of the income tax?
He contend, il, that to continue to levy from the working
classes 31,000,0001. to 35,u0n,u00t, a year indirectly on I
articles of consumption was a gores injustice (Hear, hear.)
Ile would take orf these taxes, and siestitute for them an
ineorae tax, fairly. and properly applied to the capital of the
country. 'rho principle on which he would place the tax
was, that capital and property should pay for the protection
afforded to it, and in proportion according iso its ,
amount. If direct were substituted for indirect taxa-
tine, he believed the mass of the people would not pay
more than half they paid now, and the effect which that
change would have to increasing the income tax wool,'
induce the house to interfere to prevent that extraordinary,
and, as he held, in a great measure wasteful expenditure i
which had been going on of late years. With proper economy
' the whole of the income tax might have been saved, a. he
could prove. There would have been no necessity for it
had it not been for the extravagant and useless expenditure
in military preparations' which government, upheld by the
House of Commons, had incurred, and which, hail the tax'
been levied on all persons alike, would have raised such a
clamour, that government would never have betnable tocarry
it on. He hail before him the account of the sums paid
for military establishments fur past years, and be found
that for the five years, from 1833 to 1837, the expense
for these establishments was 60,804,5121., or an average
of 12,163,000/, a year; and for the ten years, ending
1812, the average was 13,116,8151.; but in the tlirceyears from
1818 to 1850, the ayeragewas2l,ll9,94B/. From this it waa right •
to deduct the expense of the Kaffir war and the relief of ,
the Irish distress. (Hear.) But there was a difference in the 1
average annual charge for these ettahlislunents in the last !
three years as compared with the previous five of (both •
1 periods of peace) of 8,956,000/. During the ten years i
previous to the income tax our military establishments ,
had cost us 131,168,0001., or an average of thirteen mil- ;
lions a year; w &Tem since the imposition of the income
tax the total amount fur the eight years had been
144,866,000/. or eighteen millions a year. The total re-
ceipt from the income tax fur those eight years had been
39,709,8051., while the extra expense for military establish-
meats, during the same time, had been 39 931,6061. He
did not charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with blame
for this enormous increase in the expenditure of the country
but he blamed the House of Commons which had sanc-
tioned it. In conclusion, the hon. gentleman moved that
the operation of the bill be limited to one year.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON should support the amend-
' meat. but not on the grounds taken by the hon. member
for Montrose, via., with the view of substituting direct for
indirect taxation. (Hear.) He thought the most convenient
mode of raising the revenue of the country was by imposing
a moderate duty on foreign productions. (Cheers from the
protectionist+ and counter cheers and laughter from the
ministerial benches.) Ile supported thy amendment, be-
cause he thought government had not kept faith with the
country in regard to this tax. He entertained the same
objections to the house tax that he did to the income tax.
He'ngreed with thelhon. gentleman (Mr. Hume), that it
would be possible to maintain the public faith and uphold
the honour of the country without reimposing the
present tax. He did not think with the hon. member
for Montrose that it was possible to frame an income tax
which would be just or satisfactory to the country ; but if
it remained as at present in force fur another year, then let
the government avail themselves of the opportunity thus
afforded them for the purpose of considering the hints he had
taken the liberty of throwing out. (Hear.)
Mr. MOWATT said that although the hon. gentlemen op-
posite,bympporting the amendment,might very well induce
others to pause before they did anything to endanger so
large an amount of direct taxation as the income tax, never-
theless he for one, having attentively considered the sub-
ject, had no alternative but to rote for the amendment.
Ile believed he was proving himself a greater friend to the
property tax by taking that step than the government
were, and, if it were not a solecism, he would
add ;hat he was a greater friend to the government by
acting in such a manner than the government were friends
to themselves. It was an abs ity to assert that be-
cause the income tax could not made perfectly equal in
its incidents, it would be chimerical to attempt to improve
or modify it. He would propose to raise, say six-
pence or a shilling in the pound upon all real and funded
rroperty, and half that amount, say sixpence or threepence,
upon profits arising from trades end incomes. It might
be that even this proposition would bear harshly on some
classes, but he contended that those who would suffer from
its operation would be infinitely fewer than those who
suffered at present. Ile was aware that it was not those J
in trade only who suffered new ; on the contrary. he was ,
willing to admit that some hardshipa must be inflicted by ,
the wane in which the tax was Lorton upon the occupiers of

I Bad. It was unquestionably an anomaly to take the same
amount of income front the man whose profits were de-
pendent on his health as was taken from the man possessed
of a realised estate. (Hear.) If the suggestion of the
hon. member for Montrose were adopted, one of
two things must inevitably result. Either the com-
mittee to be appointed would show that the tax might be
greatly modified and improved, so as to remove many seri-
ous objections, or they would report that upon going into
the question fully and closely it was possible to make very
great changes in it fur the better.
Mr. I',UCK said eh"ul4
proposition of the hon. member fur Montrose:_believing that
the Income tax was as unjust as it was inexpedient. If there
was any one clams in the kingdom who ought to oppose its
Ire-imposition for three Tears it was the landed intertd,
particularly after the insults they had received, for that in-
-1 serest, though admitted by the government themselves to
be in a state of the greatest depression, had altogether been
Passed over in the amended budget. Meer hear.) The
income tax was one of t c most inquisitorial which could
be entailed on the country. It had originated under false
pretences, for it was to rescue England from financial iliffi-
! cultism, and, as soon as that had been accomplished, it was
to cease. Its pressure on the agricultural interest was
, severely felt ; for, in addition to that of all the other
imposts, the farmer had to pay from 50 to 100 per
cent. on an article which the foreigner could introduce
into the English markets duty free. But independent alto-
gether of the agriculturists he found that there were other
classes at present in a state of the greatest distress. In his
county (Devon) the retail trade was almost ruin. vl. Ile hoped
the landlords would unite with their tenants and use all their
legitimate influence in procuring relief. Let equal justice
be done to all classes, and then agriculture might mate again
be seen to thrive and prosper; but he was as certain a, he
stood there that if the house wrseecred in their present
course they would hose nothing but anarchy and confusion
from one end of the kingdom to the other. (Hear.)
Mr. IsIACGR EGOR expressed his belief that it was im-
possible to arrange the income tax schedules upon a just
principle, but he contended that in their arrangement they
might be made to approximate towards justice. The house
I might, for instance, charge half as much on tempo-
rary incomes as they charged on permanent incomes..
The hon. member then went into some statistic,. in support
of the general argument that direct taxation was the sys
tent bearing most favourably upon the interests of the in-
dustrial and labourior classes, and concluded by intimat-
ing that he should vote fur the amendment of the hon.
member for Montrose.

The Marquis of GRANBY considered that the question
really was, not whether the income tax was a good or a
bad tax, but whether, certain circumstances being before
them, it was most advisable to continue that tax for one
year, or for three years. In other words the question was,
1111.4 the house to give most consideration to the convenience
of the government, or to the interests and wishes of the
community? The difficulties under which the house hail
legislated in former years in regard to this tax were not
diminished but rather increased: and all the objections
urged when the proposition was previously made might
now be urged with augmented force. There were, how-
ever, on this occasion, special difficulties with which they
had to deal. It was a fact that under schedule 1) there had
been a decrease in the incomes returned to the amount of
8,000,0001. These were the incomes of the manufac-
turing and trading classes, and the government was
in the dilemma that they must either admit that
the alleged diminution on income was real and genuine
or that the classes making these allegations had had re-
course to fraud and evasion. In either cas:", he appre-
hended that a conclusive argument would be afforded
against the reimposition for any lengthened period of the
income tax in its present form. As regarded Schedule A,
it was also a fact that there was a decrease in the general
rental of the kingdom to the amount of 20 per cent. Did
the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
intend to make a reduction in the assessment to the income
tax proportionate to this reduction in the rental ? If he
(lid not intend to make any change, and yet admated
that the decrease had taken place, it could not be denied
that the government was attempting to be guilty of a aery
gross injustice. If, on the other hand, the right hon. gen-
tleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did really intend
to propose a change, then the house would have to under-
stand that, 20 per cent. on 45,000,0001. amounting to
9,400.0001., there would be a decrease in the product of the
income tax of not less than 500,10//. As respected Sche-
dule 11, ho considered that the objections which had iten
urged were unanswerable. But he was aware that
the retort would be made, that tho farmer was
not the only person taxed whose income was pre.
carious. Ile conceded the whole of the argument,
in this direction; and this argument, he considered, was
fatal to the whole system of direct taxation. Direct taxa-
tion could, in fact, lamer be made an equitable system of
taxation. Ile believed that the principles guiding their
commercial, fiscal, and financial policy of late years, were
decidedly vicious and false: and, regarding the income tax
as part and parcel of the new policy, he could not support
it. Ile called upon the government not to destroy the tree
when they desired but to gather the fruit. Ile should vote
for the amendment.

Mr. COBDEN—It would be in the recollection of the
house that he had some time ago taken the opportunity of
publicly asking his lion. friend the member fur Moutroae
to bring forward the motion which he (Mr. Cobden) knew
that his hon. friend wished to make in such a precise SUN
as would have enabled them to come to an exact deci-
sion on that which his hon. friend undoubtedly considered
to be at issue in this discussion. Ile had out only in pub-
lic, but privately, requested his hon. friend to take such
a course, and he thought that the proceedings of 1
that evening must have convinced the hon. gentleman that'
it would have been better far for the cause which lie had
at heart if he had consented to adopt the advice
offered to him. Now, if the honourable gentleman hail
I brought forward the motion in these terms—that it is ex-
pedient, in renewing the income tax, to impose a smaller
I charge on precarious incomes than on income.: derived from
permanent property—then he (Mr. Cobden) thought that
they would have had a division in that house which
would have brought to au exact issue that which was really
; in question. This indeed was a motion which he thought
should still be made. He had consulted the Speaker on
I the subject, and had found that it could not be made now.
But this was what his hon. friend wished and intended ;
and that, in reality, was the question now put to the house.
Well everybody knew that if that question were submitted
to the house there would be two to one against it. The
hon. member for Cockerrnouth had brought forward that
' identical motion in '4B, and in a tolerably large house he
. was on that occasion beaten by nearly two to one. Was it
more probable that they would get a concession front those
gentlemen who represented real property towards those
comprised in the class of professional and traction rum,
now after having seen so recently a division on a motion of
! the lion. member for Bucks, the result of which was that the
; government had got but a majority of 13—that majority
being against the transfer of a portion of the burdens of
real property from the shoulders of those who now bear
them to the shoulders of the professional, trading, and in-
dustrious classes. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The motion
meant that, or it meant nothing. It meant that, or it waa
adman. It was, in fact, nothing less. Then, he might be asked
' when he knew the division would be so heavily against him,
what advantage would there be in persevering in bringing
the proposition forward. There would be every advantage.
He was not one—whatever the hon. member for Bucks
might be —to cushion a question or to evade debate upon it
when he knew that he had right and justice on his side,
merely because he apprehended that he should be left in a
minority. Ile wanted to sec the minority ; still more he
wanted to see the majority. Ile always wanted a division
on a question pure and simple ; and when he had right on
his side he would trust to the country to assert that right and
to remedy the injustice against which he remonstrated. Now,
was hi. boo. friend the member for Montrose accomplishing
his object ? His motion was to limit the income tax to one
year. He (Mr. Cobden) should not be surprised if 1.10
members from the other side of the house voted with his
hon. friend in favour of the terms of that motion. But
would they (the protectionists) tell him (Mr. Cobden) or
the country that they voted with his hon. friend because
they desired to remodel the income tax, and, in remodelling
it, to relieve the trailing and professional classes from
undue burdens ? He would include the farmers in
the trading classes. (Cries of " Oh !" from the protec-
tionists.) Yes; he would show them the difference b. twecn
landlord and farmer before the session was over. Ile had
done it before, and he might find it necessary to do so
again. But that was not now the question put by the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Hume.) Did the hon. gentleman expect
that the 150 gentlemen who would vote with hint from the
other side of the house would vote with him because they
believed with him that the tax ought to be re-
adjusted in the sense he meant? The hon. gen-
tleman might perhaps have suffered from the delusion
until that night; but the speeches of hon. gentlemen oppo-
site on this occasion must have completely undeceived him.
The noble marquis (Granby), for instance, had frankly de-
clared himself against the very principle of direct taxation.
The noble marquis and the hon. gentleman were, there
i lore, the antipodes of finance ; and if they went into the same
lobby together, it was to accomplish no common end. (H. ar.)
And supposing the hon. gentleman to be successful, and to
return with a majority, the fact would only increase the
antagonism between him and those to whom he would be
indebted for that majority. (Cheers.) The hon. mem-
ber for Montrose had already said that there were
20,000,0001. of revenue now paid in import duties. And
be (Mr. Cobden) would ask those gentlemen, who talked so
much of the great pressure upon the real property of
this country, and who were constantly bewailing the weight
thrown upon the landowners, if they had ever had the
cariosity to compare the amount of customs duties paid in
We country with the amount paid in any other country of
fie? Forty per cent. of the whole of our revenue was
&deed from customs duties. About 10 per cent.
to 11 per cent. of the revenue of Franco was derived
from that source. About 8 per cent. of the re-
venue of Spain was derived from that source. Austria
ami Melia contributed in the same proportion. Therefore
5w..... it the British people were already paying three
VOW 1111 much in customs duties towards the revenue as any
serf European nation. (Cheers.) But they (the protec-
tionists) were not satisfied. They wanted to throw a still
=Mr proportion of the reveries upon the indus-
population. Apia, there were the excise du-
ties which came in the sane category; aad_ , altogether,
It would appear that, out of the whole taxation,'
30,000,000/. to 34,000.0001. were paid by the great mass of
the people who consumed the necessary articles of subsist-
ence. Those, therefore, who advocated indirect taxation,
and who wished to incream the amount of indirect taxation ,
in this country. meant, whether they knew it or not, to in-I
crease the burdens of the mosses of the people while relieving
thom beam able to bear them. (Chest, and outlaw deal.)

For, if they wanted to levy taxes in the way most
likely to be oppressive to the labouring portion of
the people, let them levy those taxes upon articles of con-
sumption. (Hear, hear.) In no respect is the labouring
man so much on an equality with the wealthy man as in
respect to what he consumes of excise and customs duties
paying articles. The labouring man swallowing his beer
was in the same position as regarded taxation as the wealth '
man drinking hi. claret. But did they (the protectioaiste)
intend to bring the eireunt,tanc, 4 of the two to a level I
(Hear, hear.) Certainly not; what the honourable ute:u-
fier f.::: Montrose alleged, and whet ',ge (Mr. u,',;:).en)
alleged, as the strongest objection to indirect taxes was,
that whilst they mulcted the labouring man of a larger
share of his earning than could have been extracted from
him by any other process, the y, at the sante time, put ob-
stacles in his way and c Manually retarded his pro-
' gress in doing that which would the better enable
, him in the end to pay the heaviest amount of taxes.
(Loud cheers.) This was no longer any mystery. AU
; this was very well known to tl people of this
country. (Iliac, hear.) If lie (Mr. (Vein) could tied
a motion coming from the other side of the house,'
which might join hon. go :admen opposite with bon. gen-
tlemen on that side, for a haws fide reduction of expencli•
titre, his vote would be ready for any such motion. Nay,
more: if he saw that hon. gentlemen opposite were
engaged in opposition to a tax of an obnoxious
kind, which tax, if repealed, would lead to a re-
duction of expenditure, he should feel very much dis-
pesed to go with them—the tax assuulted being, in his
viaw, a tax inconsistent w ithsonnd principles. But, if they
asked him to go with them in abolishing almost the only
tax they had which was sound in its character, though
faulty iu its details, he was bound to decline their off-r;
because, even if they were going to carry with it a reduction
of expenditure in order to enable them to effect the re-
peal, it was his duty to tell them honestly that
there were other taxes which lac would wish to see re-
pealed before they touched the income tax. (Cheers.)lie rould not join with them in abolishing or endangering
the income tax on any grounds which he could accept as
justificatory. First : not because it might lead to a reduc-
tion of expenditure enabling them to dispense with that
tax, inasmuch as he sought the repeal previously of other
taxes concurrently with reduction of expenditure. In the
next place he cou:d not join them, because duty wanted to
compensate for the abolition of this tax by putting on other
taxes which Ito considered were odious, and which, on
earnest principles, he was strongly opposed to. (Cheers.)
There were 14,000,000/. of customs and earise duties, any of
which he would take in preference to the income tax,
faultyas that was, if he could get a reduction of expendi-
ture, enabling hint to do away with such 1 ixes. (Cheers.)
And, therefore, ou troy ground on which he could con-
sider this case, he must decline giving his vote to
his hon. friend. (Cheers and counter clue rs, and laughter )
If his lion. friend (Mr. Hume), or nay hon. gentleman
oppoite would tell hint how tiny could advance out: step
towards the object which his hon. liked (Mr. Hume) had
in view, vie., the remodelling, of the income tax, and placing
it on a more equitable basis—if he (Mr. Cobden) mold he
told how this end would he gained by joining 1.'...) hon.
gentlemen opposite, who wanted to get rid of the income
tax altogether, and substitute customs duties, including a
corn law—(hear, hear)—then he (Mr. Cobden) would be
open to conviction. (Hear, hear.) lie did not, however,
by any means admit that the income tax ought to r•-main a
permanent tax in its present form. Ile was opposed to it in
its present unequal and unjust form, and be hoped that the
country would have the power to reined,' it some time.
(Laughter from the opposition benches.) Let hon. gentle-
men laugh as they might, but he (Mr. Cobden) looked for-
ward to the time when the great body of the peo-
ple would have more power in that house, mid
would he enabled to modify and rel.:wild our taxes.
Ile felt it his duty to oppose the tnot:ou of his hon.
friend (Mr. name) ; and he would ask every one of his
friends who did not wish to StV the income tax endangered
to join in resisting the transparent attempt of the other side
of the house—(ie:Ll, hear)—to undo a system which, what-
ever might be the complaints as to some of its details, had
been eminently adventageons to the great mass of the com-
munity. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. J. DELL felt that those hon. members whose
general policy was to support the government were in the
present instance placed iu the most unpleasant predicament.
((treat laughter from the opposition I: itches.) They must
either vote fur the continuance of the tax for three years,
and not he able to look their friends out of doom in the
face—(t. Hear, bear," and Laughter)—or oppose the go- ,
vernment at a time wh, n the great majority of people con-
sidered it exceedingly improper to endanger their tenure of
Miler. (lAught r, and "Hoar hear.") Ile (Mr. Bell),
chi refine, asked the noble lord (Lord J. litiNwll) whether
that were a fair position fur his friends to wimpy ?I i (Laughter.) If he (Mr. He'll) should on the present occa-
sion support the government, it was only because he saw
the matter being made a party question. (Laughter, and
cries of " Oh, oh," from the opposition benches.)
Mr. S. 111E111:EltT urged irecity reasons why the income
tax ought not to be considered a permanent source of re-
venu, . Ile objected to many points of the ministerial '
budget which this tax was nose required to square, but at I
the same time found n. arty as much dissatisfaction with I
the financial policy indicated by the protectionista. lie
should vote against the a:uenclineut. 1
... ...

3lr. W. 3.1111.:S remarked that the case of the tenant-
. farmer hail been overlooked by the preceding speakers, and
in their name advocated the limitation of the income tux to
a single year, hoping that hi the course of next session the
, revenue might be in a state to afford them sonic relief from
the impost.
The (fIIANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER said he cer-
tainly felt some difficulty when the hon. member for Mon-
trose sat down, to know what course he should take—
: whether he wits to agree with the speech, or with the
motion with which the hon. gentleman conelutled, because
it appeared to him one had little to do with the
other; and he placed him and the house in colisiderable diffi-
culty as to whether thee would deal with the income tax to
modify it or to renew it foe one year. Ile confessed he was
not in a much better situation in dealing with the vicious
other speeches which Lel been made. lle confessed
that his honourable friend the member for Montrose
was just as obnoxious to the observations made by tho
meshes for the West ]tiding. Ills hon. frieutl declared
that the income tax should ho made permanent, and ho
thought it desirable that it should he modified. What was
the course which his hen. friend would take to effect these
objects? The first thing he wished was that it
should be nualified, and that he did not even propose.
His great object, the one which ho thought mint
important was that, whether the tax was modified or not,
it should be made a permanent tax, and the course be took
in order to attain that object was to propose it fir the very,
shortest perial. Why, if Ilk lion. friend succeeded in
getting a majority to-night, he would not get one step
towards the modification of the tax, and he might go a
considerable way in making it nut a permanent tax.
lie would not advance his object a Single step, but he
might advane, the object of tho-c from whom he differed
more widely than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did,
though he had never advocated the modification of the tax.
If the hon. gi atleinan had taken the same course that was
taken by the hon. member for Cockermouth and proposed
a modification of the tax, and taken the sense of the house
upon that, he might have had the subject fairly discussed ;
and he might have attained h s object, and, at
any rate, his motion would have been consistent
with his views. But the course lie took was furthering
the views of those who differed from him as widely as pos-
sible. There was nothing new in any of the proposals.
There was no intonation that was requinal upon the sub-
ject. The objections which the hon. gentleman had taken
to-night were perfectly well known and stated in 1812, in
1841
, and in IhlB. The identical proposition which the hon.
gentleman made to-night was made and negatived in ISIS
and on previous occasions. He did not know where he got
the notion which was referred to by the hon. member
fur Falmouth, that he (the Chancellor of thoExehequer)
was in favour of a modification sof the tax ; because he
stated, as distinctly as words would enable him, in 1512,
that he thought no modification of the tax was possible,
and he repeated that on subsequent occasions. The hon.
member for Falmouth and the lion. member for Glasgow
said Sir Robert Peel would have modified it. Now
he would say that hr attached great importance to the opi-
nions of a person who, like Sir Robert Peel, had given
great attention to questions of this kind. What did Sir
Robert Peel say in ISIS, when he was not hampered by
bearing office, and when he had none of these difficulties
upon him, and when he had had the experience of six
itoeyser tto enable him to come to a deliberate opinion. Sir
Pecl then said
I most my, riot haying given the subject repeated reauldwatlee, f wok the tax ougLt to be on income, anti that there 'lona be so
dietioetlon mid- in the amount of the tan on amount of tho oillerent
spumes from which the incomes are derived. 1 never would consent
to relieve from the ioc eon derived from trade and from profess
aMm, for the put pt3e of taking in t nvidious and. as 1 thick, all an.
Just Wainetioe by teal ing mph a tax upon Mated ce what is called
realised poverty. I think en offset ought to be made to meet the as.
noel demand of the country by the annal exertion of the country,
Inasmuch es the animal Income of the rotary depends upon that
mitten. Why, that Is really the principle upon which el your taus are tounded—oU throe taxes fur winch this income tax Is a eutetltute.
Sorely all the taxeswhich have bon repealed equally hardy
upon the profemittr.al Imo as upon the man of te.diecd property. You
make no oistinetion as to those who pay taxes on articles of luxury or
Who pay the amend t are, wilrike they he rrotersional men or
son reshaed prirerty. By reredunit the tam on articles of poe..
MI Wasik ell ponies equally, end therefore It seems to me that the
um albs tax wahli you substitute for those you aye repealed,
ViMOM to ho borne equally by et, whatever mg a the source uf
asheir
a. Ups. were to iittein;.t to mate the moo:et:no such the
hos. MOW be Chekeeenutitb has ...greeted, It would be fallacious,
W the same ditlleuaic. whiAt ,ere now pointed riot in respect to the
homes of protes-icnd men and men of real property would oocur. '
Ihe principle can 11 guy opinion, be devised which would be more
just, or, I woodraher sly, would he more free hem objection, than
that which you ere desirous of seeing removed. It mu upon that
principle that 1 proposed the imprint:on of the income tax In lee and Its renew.) in 1 1.3 ; and subsequent eonnideration ban ennflsmed
ins bete opinio that any attempt to nape', grelier annual towdm
rwforinsoims deiced from remised property would, apart front the
that the public faith is plormil to the contrary In the ease of the 104 lead to connequenzen which I am not prepared tO tonteM-
Ilillis Mot which I atone, dread to see accompashed.
He thought it was impossible, after reading the speech,
Is say it could have oven Sir Robert Peel's view to
moodily the tax, either in the way suggested by the
hoc. member for Falmouth or by the lent. member for
IMcmtrose. But the hon. member for Montrose had told
'them what it was he looked for, and allow him to point out '
to the house that it was no trifling modification of the tax
an one party or another to which the hon. gentleman di-
rected the attention of the house ; but he was prepared to
deal with the great question which he (tho Chan-
fore
cellor of the Exchequer) thought he ought to bring be-
the house not on some measure of detail, but on
a principle which they should be called upon to decide.
The hon. member would takeoff a great portion of the cut-
tOrna and exams dads% Dad Would make up the difforouce,