The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WtDNESDAY EVENING, IVIAROEI 25, 1863,

advantage of the merchant and the brewer, and, the last and
heaviest blow of all, that his scheme was especially hostile
to the agricultural interestrwhieh had already suffered from
the infliction of the income tax, To all these charges he
gave a distinct negative, and if he could show the house that
they were not well founded, surely he was entitled to their
support. The hen. member then referred to the Parochial
Assessments Act passed al 1836, the principle of which was
renewed in the Union Assessments Act of last session, this
principle being that the assessment should be made upon the
net value. He contended that this principle was equally
applicable to the assessment of the income tax. He desired
to refer to one particular point propounded in the budget
scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1853.
The hon. gentleman referred to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's statement with regard to the next receipts on lands
and houses, which he estimated at £47,200,000, upon which
the sum of 9d in the pound, and not 7d, was levied; and he
proceeded to show that even that sum did not belong exclu-
sively to the owners of land and houses. In many instances
they had to make life payments on settlements, mortgages)
&c., so that in fact the owners had to pay on about
£12,800,000 beyond their net income. That did not give
the full extent of the annoyance of the tax, and he would
give the house an instance of oppression which was very
general. He would take the case of a property let under
the ordinary covenants for £BOO per annum, The out•
goings were ltio per cent., leaving £720. The property was
mortgaged for £16,000 at 4 per cent., which was £640, and
the residue for the landlord was £BO. The income tax was
levied upon the whole £BOO, the mortgagee had to pay on
what he received, and the tax gatherer took from the land-
owner on £l6O ; but as he only received £BO, he had in fact
to pay is 6d in the pound, and not 9d. That was not all.
Suppose the mortgage rate of interest was 41 per cent., the
mortgagee would take £720, leaving no residue for the land-
owner; yet he would be obliged to pay income-tax on £BO,
which he would have to provide from other sources. (Hear.)
It was said that his proposition would create more griev-
ances and of a more oppressive character than at present
existed; but he felt confident that its application to the in-
come tax would, on the contrary, sweep away all inequali-
ties that might exist except those occasioned by poverty and
riches. He thought he had shown the landowners the
grievance under which they laboured as being taxed on 60
millions, when, in reality, all they received was only 47
millions ; and he thought the landowners must see that,
in reality, his proposition would do them a service. He did
not profess himself to be the friend of any one particular
interest, but to do justice to all parties ; and he assured the
landed interest that if they looked at the question in its true
light they would find how much they had been misled on
this subject. He did not charge the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer with the intention of deceiving them, but it arose
from his not giving sufficient time to the investigation of
the question, and his statement that his (Mr. Hubbard's)
proposition was hostile to their interests, and would have
the effect of increasing the payments from 111c1. to 131 d. in
the pound, could not fail to have a powerful effect on the
landed proprietors of the country. When his right hon.
friend made that statement be could not have understood
the action of the measure he was promoting, Now, what
was the remedy he (Mr. Hubbard) prop°, ed forthis ? There
was only one, which was the simplest remedy in the world,
viz., to apply to the action of the income tax on land the
same principle as that house had affirmed as the proper mode
of treatment for local taxation—the net rateable value of the
land—when all those inequalities would vanish, as the net
income could be divided rateably among all the parties in-
terested. He thought he had disposed of the charge that
his measure would be hostile to the agricultural interest,
and would aggravate their burdens. If hon. gentlemen
would refer to the Parliamentary paper No. 397 they would
find that he had ground for affirming that the assessment
upon land and houses combined, under his scheme, would
be 9 64-100 d. in the pound, that being the point to which it
would descend from 111 d., the sum fixed under the present
system. It was not merely land and houses that would re-
ceive benefit from his proposal. Mines, quarries, and every
kind of property would share in the benefit. Taking the net
income only would carry relief to that helpless of all indivi-
duals—the owner of terminable annuities ; for even he
would find relief in the application of that simple mode of
taxation. On that point he had a parliamentary precedent
in his favour. In 1846, when Government lent the English
landowners three millions of money, repayable by 22 years'
annuities, under the ordinary operation of the law those
landowners would have been entitled to deduct the income
tax on the whole amount. In 1853 a proposition was intro-
duced into the general measure of the budget, to the effect
that the duty charged by the act should be deducted in
proportion to such interest. That was a proper provision.
Mr. Timm, in answer to the question why that provision
should not be generally applied, replied that the circum-
stances of the loan were peculiar, and that he objected to its
general application. The peculiarity was this, that whereas
in the case of every terminable annuity which existed the
State was the debtor, in this particular case the State was
the creditor ; so that the State deliberately made a law car-
rying out one principle with regard to its debtors, which it
denied as a matter of justice to its creditors. Such an utter
subversion of justice ought not to exist. If they wished to
make the income tax an object of intense hatred and con-
tempt, they could not do better than perpetuate such ano-
malies as those. He came to the second portion of his reso-
lution, which referred to industrial incomes. His principle
was, that industrial profits were only partially applied as in-
come for the purposes of expenditure, the residue passing
into investments as capital, yielding a new product for taxa-
tion, so if they taxed the product of that portion which passed
into savings, they were taking the same property twice
over. That subject had been looked upon from every point
of view, and all agreed in asking for the same remedy or
concession in the amount of the assessment. Here again he
could appeal to precedent. In 1853 a clause was introduced
into the renewal of the Incetne-tax Act, which awarded to
the extent of one-sixth of his income a remission of the tax
to every individual who spent the portion so saved in the
purchase of a life policy. Mr. Pressley had interpreted that
to be no portion of a man's income. That proved his case.
He considered that principle excellent,but the mode in which
it was carried out was open to great reprehension. If two
men in the same profession, each receiving £1,200 a year,
were to expend £2OO, one in the education of his son and the
other in the purchase of a life annuity, why should the lat-
ter be exempted and the former taxed on the expenditure of
his son's education. Ho proposed a concession of one-third
on professional incomes, without reference to investment.
The hon, genteman then replied to the charge that his
scheme was impracticable, and quoted Mr. Pressley as an
authority who was in favour of it. Another and a very
serious charge had been brought against him—viz, that he
would cause anomalies greater and more numerous than he
could dispel. (Hear, hear.) One only had been brought
to his knowledge, though others might exist, and that
was, that he proposed to treat upon a different policy
profits arising from public companies and private parties.
With regard to public companies, what did the y consist
of ? Why they were compounded on the one hand of
managers and clerks, who supplied the skill, labour, and
intelligence with which they were worked, and, on the
other, of the proprietors, who supplied the capital. Well,
at present, the law taxed equally the labour, skill, ani in-
telligence of the clerks and managers and the dividends of
the proprietors. And although, in the application of the
principle which he was maintaining, he saw no reason why
dividends should escape taxation, he saw a still greater
reason why the stipends of managers and clerks should not
be entitled to a proportionate abatement. At the same time
he admitted that it was all but wholly impossible to draw
an analogy between incomes derived from trade and incomes
derived from professions, still the absence of that analogy
was exceedingly unimportant as regarded the main point,
namely, the amount of the assessment. He denied that he
was open to the charge of attempting to promote class legis-
lation; and while he had endeavoured to avoid interfering
with the action of the Government, he hoped he had afforded
the house an opportunity of affixing their approval to a
simple basis on which the income tax for the future should
rest, thereby giving effect to that axiom of Adam Smith,
that " the subjects of every State ought to contribute to its
support in proportion to the revenues they enjoyed."
Mr. LEATHAM, in seconding the motion, said that,
although they might not do complete justice to every one,
that was no reason why they should despair of relieving
some of the most prominent inequalities of the present in-
come tax. They might leave much injustice unredressed ;
but that was no reason why they should not reduce the in-
cidental injustice to a minimum. In the words of a great
statesman he might add, " Were they to despair of justice
because they had need of such great justice ?" (Hear.) One
reason for moving in the matter now was on account of the
change of policy which had been declared by those who sup-
ported the tax. The plea which used to be put forward
was that the tax was under sentence of death, and there-
fore that it was not worth while to reconstruct it ;
but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disconti•
slued his annual pantomime, and the tax, no longer de-
cent enough to die once a year, took its place amidst
the permanent sources of our revenue. He must express
what he believed to have been the complete disappoint-
ment of the commercial classes at the result of the com-
mittee of 1861. It was impossible to read the report of
that committee without being struck by the want of logic
in their conclusions, and yet that was the report which was
to extinguish the most wide-spread discontent ever aroused
by direct taxation. (Hear, hear.) When his hon. friend
(Mr. Hubbard) made his statement of last year, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer was left single-handed to vindicate
the report, and although he was not going to deny that the
right hon. gentleman did not upon that occasion make a
most masterly speech—indeed, he never heard him make
otherwise than a most masterly speech—still, his argument
was by no means conclusive. The hon. member proceeded
to criticise several passages in the speech of the right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered on
the occasion of the motion of Vie hon, member for Buck-
ingham, submitted last year, dwelling especially on one
argument made use of by the right hon. gentleman, to the
effect that schedule D had no claim to abatement, because a
great many persons taxed under that schedule took care by
self-assessment to do themselves justice. That meant of
course, said the hon. member, by falsifying the returns.
But what kind of justice did the right hon. gentleman do
to those meritorious persons who refused to evade the pres-
sure of an unjust tax by conspiring to defraud the revenue,
and who were told, in return for that exercise of high
morality, that in schedule D lurked all the roguery of the
country? By persisting in such arguments, and in a aye-

tern of Unjust taxation, he was undermining the morality of
a class upon whose high sense of honour depended the credit
and reputation of this country in the eyes of foreign nations.
(Hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,—Sir,
there are certain acts the repetition of which enables a man
to cast aside whatever degree of bashfulness or shyness he
may have previously exhibited in performing them. I am
sorry to say that the repetition of the same annual speech on
the same annual motion is not one of those acts ; and I must
sincerely state to the house that it is with some degree of
bashfulness that I feel myself compelled—(" Oh I")—by the
motion of my hon. friend, to revert to the discussion of a
subject which, as far as it can be opened out in a debate of
this kind—and I am one of those who think it is not likely
thus to be very fully opened out—is, to a certain extent, of
a threadbare character as regards the principal topics and
arguments it embraces. My hon, friend appears here as a re-
former of the income-tax, and not only that, but likewise as
the advocate and champion of a particular plan. He does
not appear as a reformer of the income-tax in general, for
no man has more mercilessly than my hon, friend the mem-
ber Buckingham cast aside, rejected, and repudiated the
plans of every previous reformer. He enjoys, indeed, an
absolute certainty that the plan which he himself proposes
is, in all its essential parts, perfect and invulnerable, and if
he could but convey to the minds of others that undoubting
sentiment with which he himself regards it, certainly he
would lead us at once to the adoption of that scheme. But I
must be permitted to say this, that while I resist the project
of my hon. friend as being, in regard to its impracticable and
visionary character, on a footing with the other schemes
which he joins me in repudiating—nay, as being a
scheme much more vulnerable in argument than
those which he rejected because he found them so de-
feetive,—l do not stand on the proposition that the struc-
ture of the income-tax is to be defended as being, in all its
parts, entirely agreeable to justice. It is not possible, I
believe, to devise a tax of this kind which shall not be
full of inequalities and anomalies. Still, the inequalities
and anomalies of the income-tax, as they now exist, have at
any rate this advantage—an advantage which even the
faults of every established tax possesses—namely, that they
are in some degree understood, and that the back has in
some degree adapted itself to the burden. But the faults,
the anomalies, and, as I think in most cases the injustices,
which my hon. friend proposes to introduce, have the addi-
tional disadvantage of novelty—a novelty which, to the
speculative mind may constitute an attraction, but which,
if it even were the fate of my hon. friend to have to propose
his plan as a practical measure for the adoption of the
house, ho would find, when once we had to consider it as a
question of legislation with a view to the supply of the
public necessities, that to shift anomalies and injustice from
one side to another isnot merely not to remedy an evil, but
to exchange an existing evil for another still worse and
more difficult to bear. Sir, my hon. friend has submitted
to us two resolutions, and he proposes them with the same
confidence as be projected them last year. But I mast
again point out to him that upon which I have dwelt, when
formerly engaged in argument against him—viz., the pre-
dicament in which he stands with reference to recorded au-
thorities on this question. He spoke himself of an entire
misconstruction of principles and misconception of 'objects
on the part of those with whom he has to contend. But, at
any rate, this must be admitted, that on a matter of such
a character authority is of great importance, because the au-
thority of men in such a case is not a naked and bare claim
to domineer over the minds of others, but as the expressed
result of the experience of those who have come nearest to
this question, who have most closely and systematically
examined it, and who have been obliged to adapt their
conduct in this house to the principles which they found
practically applicable to the subject with the least amount
of objection. In that sense my honourable friend does
not doubt that the two greatest Finance Ministers of
this country—if I may presume to form or pass an opinion
upon our Finance Ministers—Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel
—have both considered this question, and have both left the
tax as a uniform income-tax, not, indeed, as the image of
perfection in our fiscal system, but as that form on which,
as wise, prudent, and practical men, they found it necessary
to take their stand. But the question has also a more re-
cent history, and that history is somewhat remarkable. A
committee was appointed in 1850 to consider, not the plan
of my hon. friend, but a plan which so far agreed with it
that it aimed at a reconstruction of the tax in favour of those
classes whom, at the expense of other classes, he proposes
to relieve, Now, what was the history of that committee ?
The inquiry was voted by the house, if not unanimously,
by at least a large majority. Every one was desirous of in-
quiry, and those who projected the investigation made the
most sanguine and confident announcement that they would
prove their case before it. The committee sat; it examined
the matter patiently; it ended by making no report. That
plan entirely broke down. Nor was that all. There were
gentlemen of eminence in this house who went into that
committee completely wedded to the plan of reconstruction,
and who came out of it either entire converts to the prin-
ciple of the present tax, or, at all events, greatly shaken in
their adhesion to the scheme for reforming it. I have been
told—and I may be contradicted if I am wrong—that my
lion, friend the member for Rochdale, who entered that
committee with the utmost confidence in the practica-
bility of the re-adjustment scheme, was entirely shaken
in his belief as to its feasibility by hearing the evidence
adduced. And it is perfectly well known that another
gentleman, then a member of this house, and not second
to anybody in his fitness for dealing with politico-econo-
mical questions—Mr. Ricardo—went into the committee of
IMO prepossessed in favour of that scheme, and came out
of it convinced that its agitation was mischievous and its
adoption impracticable. Well, we had another committee,
on the urgent application of my hon. friend, in 18G1. How
was it composed ? He won't himself deny that which I am
now about to assert. He did not lose his report. His
scheme was not rejected by that committee, because it was a
committee which went to its inquiry with foregone conclu-
sions adverse to his proposals. Some of the members were
opposed to the present mode of levying the tax; others were
favourable to it; but the majority depended upon minds
which were entirely impartial. Yet how did that inquiry
end ? By the adoption of a report wholly hostile to and
condemnatory of the scheme of my hon. friend. And the
reason why that report was carried was because the majo-
rity who agreed to it consisted of men who were brought to
their conclusions in consequence of their labours and inqui-
ries on that committee. Sir, these are facts of great impor-
tance. It is very easy to discuss a matter of this kind in
the House of Commons, but something is due in point of
authority to the conclusions of those who have been selected
by the house for the purpose of examining in great detail a
particular question of great intricacy and complexity.
And when it is found that committee after committee
closes its investigations with a mind more adverse to such
schemes as my hon. friend's than that with which they
began them, that is a fact of great significance, which not
all the ingenuity of my hon. friend can shake. And,
although I don't pretend for one moment to say that the
house is to be governed by the authority either of Ministers
or of committees in opposition to its own convictions—(hear,
hear)—yet it is an element of great weight in the case, which
it would be highly for the interest of my hon. friend's argu-
ment if he could eliminate from it, but the force of which, I
think, we must all feel it difficult reasonably to disregard.
My hon. friend the member for Huddersfield made a very
ingenious speech, but how does he know what may happen
to himself ? Other gentlemen, ingenious like him, and with
the same leanings, looking at the question from a distance,
have thought to reduce the income tax, but when they came
to look at it more narrowly have found, not that the present
tax stood tree from fault and blame of almost every kind,
but that it was unwise to encourage the agitation of schemes
which in themselves were impracticable and tended to ex-
cite hopes and expectations that cannot be realised. (Hear,
hear.) Now my hen. friend, rejected by his own committee,
and having himself rejected the favourite schemes of re-
formers in the preceding committee, after having had his
motion likewise rejected by a large majority in the house,
comes forward with unabated confidence and again submits
his propositions ; and I must say my hon, friend as he adds
to the numbers of his campaigns, together with his expe
rience—l had almost said together with his misfortunes—
exhibits no small increase of hardihood, for he adopts a
much bolder tone, and undertakes to show us that there can-
not be a greater mistake than to suppose that he is favour-
able to the great capitalists, bankers,merchants,and brewers,
who having their property invested, not in their business,
but in the funds and railway shares, were subject to the
highest rate of tax. My hon. friend is so modest with re-
spect to Schedule D that he will not allow himself to assume
the smallest credit as a benefactor to that unfortunate inte-
rest, and when he deals with Schedule A he adopts quite an
opposite tone, He says there cannot be a greater mistake
than to suppose that I am going to augment the burden on
Schedule A. He quotes an entirely impossible case of a gen-
tleman with £BOO a year derived from landed estate, and
that 4720 of it may Le put out on the interest of a mortgage,
I certainly am not conversant with such a case, but he says
this is a most cruel case. I have shown that under the pre-
sent law such a man, instead of paying 9d, in the pound,
may really pay Is. 6d.; whereas, under the plan I propose
he will only pay 'Old. Let us then try that issue. Does he
admit or not that his plan is to relieve one class at the
expense of another ? If he says that be does not impose
unjust burdens on Schedule A, I fully admit he is not half
so unjust to Schedule A as to some others. I don't know
on what principle he has been pleased to select some de-
scriptions of income which are generally considered most
fluctuating and uncertain, in order to smite them with the
weight of his right hand and lay on them the full weight of
the tax, Railway and canal property is to pay the highest
tax. Canal property, under railway competition, has under-
gone severe pressure and reverse, but he selects it for agree-
able prominence in taxation, while he makes a deduction of
one-third from every flourishing business in the City of
London. (Hear, hear.) Then with regard to railway pro-
perty—l hope there is no railway shareholder in this hou-e
—(a laugh)—if there be he will judge what kind of reme-
dial scheme that is which leaves railway property taxed as
now at the full rate, and puts an extra tax on it in order to
give relief of 33 per cent, to every flourishing business in
the City of London. (Hear.) The Great Western divi-
dend took a great jump upwards ; but something of this
kind lately happened that the shareholders, enjoying an
income of £3 per cent. one half-year, the next it dwindled
to ss. per cent. ; but my hon. friend has no mercy for such
an income, and he proposes to levy a sur-tax for the benefit
of those who are to enjoy is reduction of 25 per cent. My

lion. friend assumes an over-modesty with respect to
Schedule D, and a degree of confidence, of innocence, to-
wards Schedule A, of which he is hardly entitled to claim
the benefit. His inference meant, if it meant anything,
that he would give as effective reduction on Schedule A.
:is that sot or is it not ? Let us understand. Is the plan to
relieve everybody oitt of some bottomless purse possessed
by my hon. friend, but of which no one else is cognintit
or, is it the old vulgar plan of putting his hand into the
Rocket of one man to place the contents in that of
another P That is my translation of my hon. friend's speech,
and it is very considerably supported by the figures and
papers he has laid on the_table. We have heard his speech
to-night; how great a benefactor he is to Schedule A. Well,
the amount of tax paid in 1860-61 under Schedule A was
£2,048,000, and the amount of the tax which would have
been paid under Schedule A, if the scheme of my hon. friend
had been in operation, is £2,308,000, showing an augmenta-
tion of £260,000, or about 12f per cent. That is the plan;
but don't be mystified about the amount of expenses and
repairs and charges of maintenance. That is the net result
presented by my hon. friend. Schedule A actually paid
under the present cruel and grinding tax £2,048,000, and if
his plan had been in operation it would have paid £2,308,000
—an increase of £26o,ooo—for the relief and benefit of other
parties. (Hear, hear.) My hon, friend worked himself up
by his dissertation on the three years' average clause till he
appeared to arrive at the conclusion that the present law
was by far too much in favour of those who pay the tax
under Schedule D. Let us see how he ought thus modestly
to disclaim the character of benefactor to Schedule D. I
revert to his own simple figures. Schedule D in 1861, when
the tax was 10d„ paid £3,613,000, and if his plan had been
in operation, Schedule D would have paid £3,049,000, or less
by £564,000 than it actually paid. I therefore think I have
established in favour of my hon. friend, first of all that he
has somewhat overstated his claims to the gratitude of the
taxpayers in Schedule A, and that he has greatly under-
stated the grounds, on which he is fairly entitled to be con-
sidered a benefactor, to those paying under Schedule D. Let
us now come to the principle on which he founds his propo-
sition ; but first of all let me say this—to render anomalies
and cases of injustice. Under:Schedule A he says he will make
an allowance of one-twelfth or 81 per cent. ; let us see the
meaning of that. Some owners of land have properties in
which the repairs of agricultural holdings are veey heavy,
and go far beyond one-eighth, but many other holders have
properties on which they don't pay a shilling for repairs.
The way the hon. gentleman would remove anomalies is
that, whether a man pays 20 per cent. for repairs or no-
thing, a deduction of si per cent, shall be made all round
to him who pays nothing as well as to him who pays much.
If he could grant that reduction to one without taking it
from another, there would be something to say for such a
mode of dealing, but that is not a►nd cannot be the case.
If you make a deduction all round, the meaning is that to
benefit one man you must tax somebody else. The general
upshot of my hon. friend's plan is that he adds rather more
than one-eighth to the payments of those who pay the tax
upon land or houses. Every man upon the average who
now pays £8 would then pay £9, but the difference would
be that, while as a class those who now pay £8 -would then
pay £9, many of that class would still only pay £B, because
the increase of the tax upon them would be counterbalanced
by an arbitrary reduction, while others of the same class,
instead of paying £O, would have to pay £lO, and this im-
mense inequality my hon. friend seeks to introduce by a
machinery as arbitrary in character as it is unsatisfactory
and anomalous in results. But he says he rests upon one
main proposition as the basis of his plan—that is, he aims
to relieve what he calls industrial incomes. I will come to
the justice of that principle by. and-by, but upon what con-
siderations does he found it ? His argument is, " I will re-
lieve industrial incomes because under the law as it now
stands the very same property which is taxed in one year as
profits of trade is taxed in another year as capital with refe-
rence to the fruits it produces." But is that a reason why
the income-tax should be reconstructed ? Because in 1863
you tax as profits in trade what in 1864, so far as unex-
pended, appears as capital yielding fruits subject to taxation,
I say that is the principle of our law as to property in
general. The law of this country makes property pass
through preliminary taxation at the point when it comes
into the possession of the holder, and then subjects it the
year after, and every year after, to taxation in respect of its
fruits. If a man makes £50,000 in trade in 1863, my hon.
friend says that ought not to be taxed in respect of its
fruits as capital in 1864, But supposing a man inherits a
property worth £50,000 in the Funds in 1863, he pays Pro-
bate Duty, Legacy Duty, Succession Duty. It is taxed as
capital in 1863, it remains in his possession, yielding in-
come, in 1864, which is taxed again. The main reason
which my hon. friend urges for breaking up the income-tax
and substituting a scheme of his own is because we apply to
savings made in trade the same rule which we apply—when-
ever the law can apply it—to any other property when it
comes into possession of the holders. I think, therefore,
that my hon. friend has no ground for substituting hisplan
for the existing system, and the principle of his plan, I must
say, appears to me to be fraught with danger. The hon.
member for Huddersfield seems to think that the existence of
a surplus would solve the question ; and that the exception
I took to my hon. friend's proposition is simply that we had
not a surplus, and, therefore, had not the money wherewith
to do justice. I did mention the non-existence of a surplus
as a difficulty for my bon. friend to deal with, but not as
any part of the difficulty I felt in acceding to his proposie
tion. If there be a surplus—and it does not become ma to
say now whether there be or not—(laughter)—but if there
be a surplus of taxation we ought to deal with this question
upon precisely the same footing as if there were no surplus
—that is we should do justice between the several classes
of taxpayers of the country. Now as to the practicability
of the proposed scheme, my hon. friend has, I think, done
an involuntary injustice to the late chairman of the
Board of Inland Revenue. He said that Mr. Pressley,
although he made difficulties at first, and although
he was a most violent Conservative in all matters relating
to revenue, yet such was the force and truth of my hon.
friend's plan that at the close of the inquiry he withdrew all
his objections, and had no more to make. My hon. friend
mistakes the character of Mr. Pressley perhaps because he
has not been privileged, as many of us have, to enjoy the
intimate friendship of that gentleman. What is the value
of the term " Conservative" as applied to politics is not a
question for discussion at present; but as applied to the
administration of the revenue laws never was error more
ludicrous than to desciibe Mr. Pressley as eminently en-
titled to the epithet describing him as wedded to existing
schemes and existing laws. For six years I have had the
closest intercourse with Mr. Pressley upon all matters re •
lating to the revenue, and never in my life did I see a man
more wholly free from all vestige of prejudice, more
eager for improvements, or more eager to carry them out.
He never withdrew his objections to my hon. friend's plan,
because he never made any. (Hear, hear.) Does my hon,
friend think that Mr. Pressley was so young in his duties
as to commit himself in a reply to some ingenious question
of my hon. friend, put in the hope of obtaining the sanction
of Mr. Pressley's authority to his views, or that he was a
man to put himself in the place of the members of this
house and dictate to them the principles upon which the tax
should be levied ? All he said was "if the house choose to
enact a plan we can carry it out," and there is no doubt of
that. But what is the principle of my hon. friend ? He
claims privilege for what he chooses to call industrial in-
comes. There is some degree of fallacy in that expression.
Industry in this country is exempt from income-tax. I do
not know that that exemption can be said to rest upon
any very broad or clear principle, but for my own part I
think it may be justified by two considerations—first, that I
believe it to be visionary to dream of levying income tax
from the bulk of the labouring classes, and next, because, as
far as I am able to judge, under the system of taxation now
existing the labouring man, although exempt from income-
tax, pays at least a very fair, perhaps a rather full, share of
taxation ; but as far as the income-tax is concerned, indus-
try, properly so called, except a limited portion of the more
highly skilled mechanics, is exempt, My hon. friend means
the profits of edacated men in professions, or some of them,
and he likewise means the exercise of industry and intelli-
gence in combination with capital. I want to know upon
what principle my hon. friend gets to this particular dis-
tinction, as different amounts of taxation are to be taken
from different people not according to the revenues they
possess, which is an intelligible principle, not according to
their poverty, which is an intelligible principle, not accord-
ing to their wealth or poverty, but according to the degree
in which industry and capital are mixed up together in
making up the income. My hon. friend propounds this as
the foundation of his system, but in my opinion a more
dangerous principle it is not possible to conceive. Those
whom he desires to relieve are the class whose fortunes are
on the most rapid state of progress and increase. Those
who are needy in proportion to the station they occupy my
hon, friend leaves untouched, or rather he subjects them to
additional burdens in order to give a great relief from taxa-
tion to a class whose fortunes are in the most rapid state of
augmentation. But how does he think, when he has esta-
blished his claim on behalf of what he calls industrial in-
comes, he will be able to shut out those who are disposed
to recommend other principles ? He will, no doubt, be
shocked when I say that in my opinion more is to be said
in favour of graduated taxation than for this plan. A gra-
duated taxation recognises poverty in one class and over-
grown wealth in another, and justice demands that one
should pay less and the other more, there is something
rather plausible in that principle, more so than in my hon,
friend's plan. He takes a widow, with £2OO a year from the
Funds, with six children to educate, to train, and to start
in the world, and he takes the case of a great merchant—l
will not say brewer or banker, as there seems to be some
objection to specifying those flourishing classes ; but
to a great merchant, with £20,000 a year, he grants a relief
to the extent of one-third, and in order to do that he adds
25 per cent, to the burden of the poor widow. I protest
against the principle of my hon. friend. It is one, in my
opinion, which, when carefully examined, is much leas
plausible and at least as dangerous as the principle of gra-
duating taxation. The member for Huddersfield says I ap-
pealed last year to the gentlemen opposite. He is much more
fresh in his recollection of that speech tdeen I am, having
done me the honour to refer to it; but I"am not aware that
I appealed to the gentlemen apposite in particular. I ap-
pealed to the whole house, and I trust they will have the
justice and the manliness now to repeat the vote which they
gave on that occasion, (Cheers.) Some justice and some
manliness I think it requires, because I do not deny the
faults and Saws of the present income tax, Ido not deny

that a feeling has aided, does exist, and I believe will
always exist among considerable portions of the community
in the direction of the motion which my hon. friend has
made. Neither do I deny that such a feeling is entirely
natural. But I do say that when the real merits of the case
are examined, when investigation is made of broad practical
issues, such as I have only endeavoured in one or two cases
to exemplify, but which were mere fully and sharply
brought ottt before my hon. friend's committee; the danger
involved in my hon. friend's principle will be apparent. The
danger, moreover, will be °Worts of agitating subjects
like this, and of substituting vague expoctations in the minds
of the community—expectations which only end in taking
money from one man to give it to another—for those ra-
tional hopes of reduction which never can be realised by my
hon. friend's plan, but the realisation of which must en-
tirely depend on the adoption of judicious economy, and the
consequent applica'ion of sound principles to the relief of
the public. (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Mr. HUBBARD, whose voice was almost inaudible
through the impatient cries for a division, wished to know
what answer the right hon. gentleman had given to his
argument. He left the matter where it stood, and merely
sought to give it a new complexion. His E dvice was id sub-
stance that they should wear their chains till their hands
and feet grew callous, and till they ceased to feel the galling
of the yoke.
The house divided, with the following result—
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The resolution was therefore lost.
APPROPRIATION BILL.

Lord R. MONTAGU rose to move the following resolu-
tions—That every bill hereafter introduced for the appro-
priation of supplies be printed and distributed in time for
consideration before it passes through committee of the
house. Second, That it is inexpedient that any bill for the
appropriation of supplies shall contain the power of transfer
which was first introduced into the Appropriation Act of
1346, and which unsettles the appropriation of all the
grants of the year for the naval• and military service.
The noble lord said he would be prepared to show that
many changes had been made in the Appropriation Bill
after it had been printed. These changes had taken place
year after year. One year the appropriation clause was
inserted, and the transfer clause omitted ; another year the
transfer clause was retained, and the appropriation omitted.
The object of the resolutions he was about to move was to
lay down a distinct proposition which would prevent any
changes in future in the Appropriation Bill. The Treasury
check was a mere matter of form, and its object had been
attained. He quoted Sir G. Bromley, Mr. Arbuthnot, the
Duke of Somerset, and others in support of that opinion.
The clause had been most injurious in its effects, and he
proceeded to show its operations in six different ways, that
the expenditure had vastly increased since the introduction
of the clause into the act—that it prevented departments
from coming to Parliament for more money when they re-
quired it—and that it produced a laxity in the estimates.
It tended to defy Parliament finding out how the money
was appropriated, and it induced departments to take more
money than was wanted on popular votes, and less on un-
popular ones, and apply the balance to other purposes. No
possible inconvenience could result from expunging the
clause. He advocated the establishment of a Treasury
chest fund as preferable and as likely to bring the depart-
ments more under the control of the Treasury than as at
present by the surrender of their balances. He concluded
by moving the resolutions.
Mr. COX seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
with regard to the first resolution, that his noble friend
greatly exaggerated the effects of the law to which his mo-
tion had reference; however, he had no objection to a suf-
cient number of copies of the bill being placed at the dis-
posal of members, although he did not consider it worth
while to incur an expenditure of some hundred pounds
in order that every member of the house might receive
a copy. The second resolution he interpreted to mean
that it was desirable to bring every excess of expendi-
ture under the notice of the house at the earliest
possibh.: period; but, in framing that resolution, his noble
friend bad not taken into consideration that, upon the re-
commendation of the committee which sat last year, the
suggestion had been embodied in the act of Parliament.
The second resolution, therefore, was directed against a
danger which no longer existed.
Sir F. BARING, as a chairman of the committee on
public accounts, which sat last year, considered that the
Appropriation Bill ought to come before the house in a
printed shape before it passed; but, with respect to the
second resolution, there was no necessity whatever for it
after the provision which had been inserted in the Act on
the recommendation of the committee of which he was
chairman.

Mr. HADFIELD cordially supported the motion, and
moved, as an addition to the first resolution, that the same
rule should be applied to the Indemnity Bill.
Lord R. MONTAGU then accepted the modification
in his first resolution suggested by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and withdrew his second resolution, while Mr.
Hadfield's addition was agreed to amidst much laughter.
Mr. NE WDEGATE said that if ever the house was to
have an effectual check on the power of transfer, which had
been so much abused, they must have the detailed accounts
of expenditure of the year before, otherwise their attempt
would always be entirely futile.
The motion in its amended form was then passed.
PROCESSION AND ILLUMINATION ACCIDENTS.
Mr, HARVEY LE NV IS moved for an address for re-
turns of the names of the persons killed or injured during
the procession of the 7th day of this instant March, and on
the occasion of the illuminations in the City on the 10th
day of this instant March, and of persons who afterwards
died in consequence of injuries received on either of
those days; and of the persons injured on either of
those days whose cases were reported to the City
and Metropolitan police, distinguishing the localities
in which the deaths and injuries occurred. In doing
so the hon. member expressed a decided opinion that
the accidents ought not under any circumstances to
have occurred. The crowded state of the City during the
preparations for the reception ought to have been sufficient
warning to the City authorities that they might expect a
great and overwhelming crowd, But not only that, notice
of the most grave character had been given from a quarter
entitled to the most deferential attention—namely, the com-
mander-in•chief• His Royal Highness had stated that he
had tendered military assistance to the Lord Mayor, which
assistance had been to a great extent declined; a second re-
presentation being necessary to induce him to accept a
limited number of mounted artillery. The hon. member
described the scene in the City on the day of the reception,
and pointed out how utterly inadequate the police force
had been to perform the duty required of them, He thought
the time had come when there should be but one system of
police throughout the metropolis.

Mr. NORRIS asked that there should be added to the
return a list of the persons killed when the deceased Duke
of Wellington lay in state at Chelsea Hospital. He believed,
when the reports were presented, it would be found that the
chief cause of the confusion was the order which caused all
the attractive part of the procession to be confined to the
space between London-bridge and Temple-bar. (Hear.)
The LORD MiYOR said it would be inconvenient to
discuss the matter before the papers were in possession of
the house; but he would just state, in reference to a report
which has been circulated as to his having refused the offer
of the military, that the offer of his Royal Highness the
commander-in-chief was accepted the very same day that
it had been made.

Colonel NORTH said he had been informed that Sir R.
Airey, on the part of his Royal Highness, had waited upon
the Lord Mayor for the purpose of making an offer of assis-
tance by the military, and that the Lord Mayor had declined
that offer. He should be glad to hear from the right hon.
gentleman whether that statement was so or not.

The LORD MAYOR said it was true that when Sir R.
Airey had waited upon him he had not accepted the offer,
but he had informed Sir Richard that, as he was only the
holder of the office of mayor for a twelvemonth, he would
not take upon himself the responsibility of accepting the
assistance of the soldiers off-hand, but would send a written
reply to his Royal Highness. That reply was sent off, ac-
cepting the offer, within two hours afterwards, A report
of all the particulars has been prepared at the request of the
Home-office, and sent in that (yesterday) afternoon.
Sir G. GREY was also of opinion that the discussion
would come on more conveniently after the papers were be-
fore the house. He had not yet seen the report referred
to by the Lord Mayor, but the right hon. gentleman had
informed him that it had been sent, and he would road it at
once, and lay it before the house.