The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-19 00:00:00

speech of Lord Dufferin, said that he would readily vote
against the continuation of the grant, but would now
content himself with supporting the ministerial amend-
ment.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended the Roman
Catholic priesthood from the imputation cast upon them
by the Bishop of London, and denied the necessity of
any inquiry whatever.
The Duke of LEINSTER bore testimony to the good
conduct of the priests at Maynooth.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY thought the inquiry neces-
sary, because he believed the number of priests was in-
creasing in an inverse ratio to the increase of population,
and that if so, the condition of the grant was violated.
He would support the Earl of Aberdeen's amendment, if
the commission consisted of five instead of three ; and
moved some verbal amendments to the amendment of
the ministry.
The Duke of ARGYLL supported the amendment, a
course which he declared to be consistent with all his
ormer votes and speeches. While he objected to a
ommittee, ht-thought that, with the present feeling in
be country, some inquiry was expedient. He con-
cluded by questioning the consistency of the noble leader
of the opposition, upon which
The Earl of DERBY illustrated his total disregard for
the criticisms of the noble duke by a parallel drawn
from low life—of a gigantic navvie, who, having been
beaten by his wife, a little woman, asserted that it
amused her, and did not hurt him. He could see very
little difference between the motion and amendment, but
would support the former.
Lord LANSDOWNE objected to the appointment of a
committee on a subject of this kind.
After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY and
an explanation from Lord ABERDEEN,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY withdrew his amendment.
Lord GREY insisted that there was no occasion for
inquiry, and that a committee would be especially in-
expedient.
Lord WINCHILSEA having replied,
The house divided, when the motion was lost by
110 to 53.
The house then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair a few minutes before four
o'clock, at which time there was a very large attendance of
members.

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. GREENE took the oaths and his seat for Lan
caster.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Bognor Railway; Runcorn and Weston Canal Bill ;
Teignmouth Harbour and Teign Navigation ; Midland
Railway (Amendment of Acts, &c.) , Scottish Central
•
Railway.
The following bills were read a second time :—Ban-
bridge, Dublin Newry, and Belfast Junction Railway ;
Portsmouth Railway; Ambergate, Nottingham, and Bos-
ton and Eastern Junction Railway (No. 1) ; Am-
bergate, Nottingham
I)l'and Boston and Eastern Junc-
tion Railway (Sale, &c.) (No. 2) ; Ayrshire and
Galloway (Smithstown and Dalmellington) Railway ;
Crieff Junction Railway ; Great Western Railway (Hen-
ley) ; Great Western Railway (power to run over Shrews-
bury and Birmingham, &c., Railways) ; Great Western,
Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and Shrewsbury and Ches-
ter Railway Companies' Amalgamation ; Great Western,
Shrewsbury and Birmingham, and Shrewsbury and Chester
Railway Companies (traffic arrangement); Hereford, Ross,
and Gloucester Railway ; Herefordshire and Gloucestershire
Canal and London and North-Western Railway ; Limerick
and Foynes Railway ; London and Finsbury Improve-
ments and Railways, &c. ; South Eastern Railway (Can-
terbury and Whitstable, &c.) ; South Staffordshire Rail-
way ; West Cornwall Railway ; Worcester and Hereford
Junction Railway ; York, Newcastle, and Berwick, York
and North Midland and Leeds Northern Railway Com-
panies (Amalgamation, &c.)
EASTERN UNION RAILWAY.

On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Lord A. PAGET moved that it be read a second time
that day six months, on the ground that the bill involved
an arrangement in regard to running powers which would
endanger the safety of the public.
Mr. ADAIR thought that the bill should be sent to a
select committee.

Mr. CAYLEY supported the bill, and complained of the
arbitrary conduct of the Eastern Counties Company to-
wards this railway.
Mr. CARDWELL said it was the ordinary practice of
the house, when there was a difference of opinion upon a
private bill of this kind, to send it to a committee, in
order that the fullest inquiry should take place.
Mr. WADDINGTON defended the conduct of the
Eastern Counties Company.
After a few observations from Mr. COBBOLD and Mr. G.
BALL,
The amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was read
a second time.

TAUNTON ELECTION.
Sir G. GREY reported that this committee had deter-
mined that Mr. Arthur Mills was not duly elected for
Taunton ; also that bribery prevailed at the last election,
but it was not proved with the knowledge or consent of
Mr. Mills.

accumulated on the present Government the task they have
to discharge in that regard ; and in connexion with those
questions there have of late been raised discussions of a
nature most deeply interesting, descending to the first ele-
mentary principles of taxation, and almost to the first
principles on which men are united in civilised society.
(Hear, hear.) With a task so formidable before me, I feel
warranted in addressing a special appeal to the committee
for their kindness and indulgence, for I am certain that
only by their kindness and indulgence, can I be enabled—
I will not say to discharge the task as it ought to be dis-
charged, for that is wholly beyond my power—but to dis-
charge it so as in any case to be at least intelligible to my
hearers. (Hear, hear.) The first portion of my duty will
be -to lay before the committee the account bf the country.
I think I shall best discharge it by taking up the state of
that account from the point at which it stood last year,
when the financial department was in the hands of the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), and it will
be satisfactory to the committee to observe, that as our
experience grows with the lapse of time, so do we obtain
larger and still larger proof of the elasticity of the revenue
and of the progress of the productive and consuming
powers of the country. (Cheers.) On the 30th of April,
1852, the :right hon. gentleman opposite estimated the
revenue for the year at 51,625,0001., and in the month of
December, 1852, when the right honourable gentleman
had occasion to return to the subject, he was able to pre-
sent to us an estimate which placed the revenue of the year
at 52,325,0001., exhibiting an increase upon his estimate in
April amounting to not less than 700,0001. And now,
within the few months which have elapsed since last De-
cember, we have further evidence of the same gratifying
character, for the revenue which the right hon. gentleman
then judiciously estimated at 62,325,0001. amounted to no
less, when we reached the termination of the year, than
53,019,0001., showing an increase of 1,464,0001. upon the
estimate formed at the commencement of the year. (Hear,
hear.) The expenditure of the last year, as estimated by
the right hon. gentleman opposite on the 30th of April,
1852, was taken at 51,163,0001., but the actual expenditure
has only reached to 50,782,0001., and consequently you
have had figures presented to you in the balance-sheet
which must have been gratifying to every member of the
committee in showing a surplus of income over the expen-
diture to the amount of 2,460,0001. (Hear, hear.) But,
having reached this point by a smooth-and easy progress, it
is now my duty to entreat hon. gentlemen to make large
deductions from the very sanguine estimate—so sanguine
as, considering the quarter from which it came, to excite
my surprise—that because our balance yields 2,460,0001.
of surplus, therefore we have that sum available for re-
mission of taxation. That would be a too precipitate in-
ference. Unfortunately, before we arrive at that conclu-
sion, there is one circumstance rather material to examine,
and that is—what is the estimated amount of expenditure
of the year that we have just commenced ? Well, when I
look to that, and compare it as estimated, and as it appears
on the votes before the house, with the estimates of the
last year, I find it stands as follows :—The expenditure for
1852-53 was 50,782,000/. ; but the expenditure for 1853-54,
the great bulk of which is already voted, and upon which
I can anticipate, on the whole, no diminution, amounts to
52,183,0001. Therefore, without going into other par-
ticulars, which, I am sorry to say, occasion a fur-
ther deduction from the surplus of 2,460,0001., I
beg to point out that no less than 1,400,0001., or
nearly three-fifths of that surplus, are already disposed of
by the charges to which you are liable under acts of Par-
liament, by the votes which the house has come for the de-
fence of the country, and by the charges on account of the
miscellaneous services, which, I apprehend, this house will
not be inclined to refuse or to diminish. (Hear, hear.) The
right hon. gentleman opposite, in December, 1852, esti-
mated as follows his surplus for the present year :—He
took a total sum of 1,600,0001., of which I think he stated
that, on the ordinary revenue, ho would venture to antici-
pate a surplus amounting to between 1,300,0001. and
1,400,0001., and by decrease of charge for the Kafir war a
sum of 200,0001. or 300,0001. These two sums put together
gave a surplus, as the basis of his calculations for the year,
amounting to 1,600,000/. At that period the right hon.
gentleman thought that the only charge against that sur-
plus on account of coming expenditure would be the sum
of 100,0001,, which he proposed to apply to light dues and
purposes connected with shipping, and 600,0001. for the in-
crease he anticipated on the great services of the country.
His successor has not been so fortunate, nor has he thought
' it wise to confine the votes fir the year within these limits.
I shall now state to the house how that surplus of
1,609,000/. has been swallowed. The increase on the navy
estimates, including the packet service, as voted in 1852,
and as we found it prepared for this year (making the com-
parison with the estimate of April, 1852, not including the
supplemental vote of December), amounts to 617,6031. The
increase on the army and commissariat, but almost en-
tirely on the commissariat, is 90,0001. ; and that increase
on the commissariat is to be accounted for by the fact that
we have now reached, we trust, that stage in the hostilities
at the Cape when we may consider our extraordinary
votes at an end, and when the provision to be made has
passed under ordinary expenditure ; therefore, though it
is our duty to submit to the house, during the present ses-
sion an extraordinary vote for 200,0001., which is essen-
tially retrospective, we have likewise to submit a vote for
70,0001. in commissariat expenditure, which in its charac-
ter is prospective, and analagous to our ordinary estimates.
So the durable expenditure, as far as the Cape is con-
cerned, is charged on the service of the present year. The
increase on the ordnance is 616,0001. The militia estimates
have not yet been brought to the shape in which they will
be laid on the table : but I am sorry to say that there will
be a large and I believe unavoidable increase on the
amount taken last year by my right hon. friend then Secre-
tary for the Home Department. The estimate for the
present year cannot, I fear, be expected to be much less,
if at all less than 530,0001. I doubt if it was expected
twelvemonths ago by my right hon. friend that the amount
would be more than something like 300,0001. If so, there
would be a considerable increase in the expense of giving
effect to that plan, and it is right that the House of Com-
mons-should know the expense of giving effect to any plan,
and especially one which has realised, in other respects, all
the favourable anticipations formed of it. (Cheers.) The
increase of expense for the militia, as compared with the
reckoning of my right hon. friend, will be about 230,0001.
The last item in these augmentations of expense is the sum
of 100,0001. added to the votes during the present year for
the purposes of public education. If the committee take
the pains to put together these five items they will find
that, though the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr.
D'lsraeli) anticipated a surplus of 1,600,0001 for the finan-
cial year of 1853-4, the augmentations of charge, princi-
pally voted already and in part yet to come, amount to no
less than 1,654,0001. As I have already stated to the com-
mittee there has been some further improvement in the
revenue, and there are likewise some few items of public
expenditure on which the Government have been able to
effect some small saving. With respect to the important
and unsatisfactory charge for the packet contract service,
it has been our most anxious desire to see what, consis-
tently with justice, was to be done to amend the position
of the public. We think that the amount of change which
that service has reached, is wholly disproportionate with
the benefit derived. (Cries of " Hear.") lam not at pre-
sent in a condition to lay the estimate on the table, or to
state exactly what the estimate will be, but I venture to
anticipate at any rate for the first year, we may be able to
effect a saving on it of not less than 75,000/. There will
also be a saving on the charge for Exchequer-bids, owing
to the diminution of interest, amounting to about 65,0001.,
and there will be a sum which the house must observe is
occasional in its nature, of 135,0001., arising out of repay-
ments to the Crown revenues, and available under the pro-
visions of the law as ways and meant„ in consequence of
the bill passed by the house having reference to metropoli-
tan improvements ; and also there will be produced a sum,
by the liberation of the Crown revenues from a charge
which heretofore affected there on the same account, to
the extent of about 27,0001. These various items will
give a fund amounting to about 301,0001. I will now
state more particularly to the committee the items
of anticipated revenue and expenditure of the coun-
try, from which they will see precisely the amount of the
surplus we have to deal with. I should at the outset ex-
plain that I think it would be convenient that I should in
all cases, disregarding minute inaccuracies, give the sums
in round
numbers. I will now present to the committee
an account of the estimated revenue and expenditure for
the year 1853-54. With regard to the expenditure, the
charge for the funded debt is put down at 27,500,0001.,
and the charge for the unfunded debt at 304,0001., making
a total for the debt of 27,801,000/. The charges on the
consolidated fund will be 2,503,000/. ; the army estimates,
6,025,0001. ; the navy, 6,235,0001., not including the packet
service ; the Ordnance estimates, 3,053,000/. • miscellane-
ous, 4,476,000/. ; commissariat, 557,000/. ; the militia, as
nearly as I can judge, 530,000/. ; the extraordinary vote
for the Kafir war, 200,000/. ; and the packet service, I
think, may be fairly taken at 800,000/. for the present
year. These items give a total of estimated expenditure
amounting to 52,183,0001. I now come to the estimate of
anticipated revenue. I take the revenue of the Customs
at 20,680,000/. • Excise, 14,640,0001. ; stamps, 6,700,000/. ;
taxes, 3,250,005/. ; and income tax, 5,550,000/. From the
Post-office we expect 900,000/. • and from the Crown lands,
swelled by the addition I 'have already referred to,
390,0001. ; from miscellaneous sources of receipt (including,
I think, aout 160,0001., being the capital of the Merchant
Seamen's Fund, out of which we shall have to pay 80,0001.
during the present year on account of pensions, and the
whole of the remainder, I need not say, will be absorbed
long before that charge for pension ceases) we expect about
320,0001., and from old stores 460,0001. To these I ven-
ture to add, though the items is necessarily one of uncer-
tainty and conjecture, that I anticipate a saving of no less
than 100,0001. from the operations which have been pro-
posed to the house in connexion with the exchange and re-
demption of stock. It may, certainly, be less, and it may,
.on the other hand, be more—the final result, I hope, will
show a considerable saving. I venture now to take credit
for 100,000/. on that account. Adding up, then, these va-
rious items, the committee will find that they give a total
estimated income for the year of 52,990,0001., against
which we have to set the total estimated expenditure of
52,183,0001., showing an apparent surplus of 807,0001.
Anxious, above all, to avoid raising undue expectations, I
am desirous to impress on the committee that it must
bear in mind that out of this sum of 800,0001. eas amount
of 215,000/. consists of moneys which do not proCeed
from permanent or recurring sources, but of moneys
due simply to the year, and not to he repeated. Like-
wise, with the uncertainty connected with the items
for the packet-service and for the Channel Islands' har-
bours, on which my right hon. friend at the head of the
A4lmiralty and I are not quite sure whether we can or
ca: mot venture to make a reduction in the sum printed in
the estimates, it is possible that the surplus I have men-
tioned may not be realized to the extent of 100,0001.
Therefore, it will be more secure for the c ommittee to
assume that the surplus,. instead of 800,0001., will be
700,0001., and to bear in mind that 215,0001. out of it con-
sists of occasional payments. At the same time, while
giving this explanation by way of caution, my sanguine
hope is that we shall realise a surplus of 800,0001. This is
the state of the account of the country, as I have endea-
voured to bring it up to the present moment. The com-
mittee will not have failed to observe that in reckoning
the estimated income I have included a large sum amount-
ing to more than ono-tenth of the whole revenue, which,
from 1842 up to the present time, we have been deriving
from the income-tax. However, the income-tax has at
this moment legally expired, and it will be for the com-
mittee to consider whether or not they shall revive it.
yrpullthat subject I am afraid that it will be my duty to
ono a deetTire a committee at some length ; but before I venture
withp(l continuous otuos
prospective exposition oof
finance,the vie Nys o
theref theare
Governmenttava
questions to which I must briefly advert on account
chiefly of the position they occupied in the financial state-
ment of my predecessor ina tplaiertoicfficalearlc.inow fill. The first
Now, as re-
sh
pe
pf in
gn
rntrrest, the house ass.
go fa
ridhse st
eh
ehas
right hon. friendknowseet e thecioen President.
state-
ment
already made by my
of the Board of Trade, that her Ma'
propose to afford what they trust will be Majesty's
found Government
sider-

able benefit and relief to that interest, without inflicting
an annual charge upon the public. (Hear.) But there was
another interest mentioned by the right hon. gentleman
opposite (Mr. Disraeli) which has so much claim upon the
general sympathies of the house, that respect and consider-
ation demand that I should not leave it without men-
tion ; I mean that which is called the West Indian interest.
(Hear.) With regard to that interest, I regret to say that
there is indeed little, if anything, that can be done by a Go-
vernment, in our view, consistently with its more extended
duties to the public, in fulfilment of the requisition
which that interest has preferred. With regard to a reduc-
tion of the duty on sugar. which is one of its requests, in
proportion to the fall in the duty upon foreign sugar, so as
to maintain the differential rate that now exists between
them, it is entirely impossible for the Government to hold
out the smallest hope of their recommendation being
adopted. (Hear.) With respect to the question of re-
fining sugar in bond, which is of a different character, my
hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson)
will take a future occasion of entering more at large into
that question ; but I regret to say that we have not dis-
covered any method of granting that privilege in the pre-
sent state of the law with respect to sugar which would be
satisfactory to the West Indians and to the refining trade,
and which at the same time would not inflict very heavy
loss upon the revenue. (Hear.) With respect to the equali-
sation of spirit duties, again I fear that really nothing re-
mains to be done in that respect. I believe the distillers
of this country consider that already the duties have been
somewhat more than equalised, all things considered, in the
case of the West Indies. At all events, we are not prepared
to propose any change in the law in the nature of equalisa-
tion of spirit duties as between colonial and domestic pro-
duce. (Hear.) There is but one way in which it has oc-
curred to the Government that they might entertain a
sanguine hope of being able, at very slight charge to this
country, perhaps at no charge, to confer material benefit
on the West Indies ; and that is a way which, if it can be
effected, will, I am sure, command the approbation of this
house, because it is by enabling them to economise the
heavy expenditure of their own governments—(hear)—a
heavy and now in many cases almost a ruinous expenditure.
In the case of Jamaica, for example, there is a public debt,
the minimum rate of interest upon which is 6 per cent.,
and the maximum 10 per cent., the capital of the debt
amounting to about 500,0001. ; and if it were possible for
the Government to induce tie Assembly of Jamaica to
amend the vicious constitution of that island, and to place
it upon a foundation that would give scope for a strict con-
trol over expenditure, her Majesty's Government would
then be disposed to recommend to this house to employ the
credit of this country in a guarantee for the island of Ja-
maica. (Hear.) Ido not now inquire whether that would
entail a charge upon you ; I believe it would entail none.
I would be the first to assert that there should be the ut-
most jealousy as to the interposition of the credit of this
country between debtors and creditors out of this country
—(hear)—but, considering all that has happened to the
West Indies, considering the effect that British legislation
has had in precipitating their difficulties, I do believe that
if we were able to point out a prospect of great and effec-
tual relief to Jamaica, to be indirectly obtained through
an effectual reform in its government, this house would look
with a generous and a considerate eye upon any proposal
for using the credit of this country in the manner that I
have mentioned. (Hear.) That refers to Jamaica, which
presents at this moment by far the most urgent case of dis-
tress among the West India colonies. lam not sure that
there is any other among those colonies which would be in
a condition to request a similar interposition—(hear)—if
they did, it would depend upon the case they showed. I
do not think it likely that such a case will arise; all I mean
to say at the present moment is, that the door would not be
absolutely shut against them. I pass on now from the col-
lateral topic of the West Indian interest to another topic—
that connected with the Exchequer Loan Fund. After all
that passed in debate in December last, it was evidently the
duty of her Majesty's Government to make a full investiga-
tion into the transactions of that board. We haveinstituted
that investigation—we have presented the results in print to
the house--they are in a form so simple that an inspection
occupying ohly a few minutes will exhibit them to anyhon.
member. It appears from the figures there presented that,
after debiting the Exchequer Loan Fund—l won't say with
every folly of Parliament, but with every questionable or
ambiguous grant that was made—after chargingthewhole of
this to the last farthing, yet such has been the sound discre-
tion exercised by the members and officers of that board in
the loans they have made, that while they have afforded an
immense amount of local accommodation, they have like-
wise realised, after paying every expen_e that belongs to
the office, a net balance of not less than 227,300/.—(hear)
—which balance, if we put values such as sanguine men
might perhaps put upon certain investments that have not
yet been realised, it is far from impossible may be raised
to nearly 1,000,0001. of money to the credit of the entire
transactions of the board. (Hear.) It is our candid opi-
nion, under these circumstances, that the sentiments ex-
pressed by my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty, in December last, in regard to the Exchequer
Loan Fund, are justified by the facts—(hear)—and it is not
our intention to propose the abolition of that system, which
we think has been both honourable to those who have ad-
ministered it, and highly beneficial to the country. (Hear.)
I now approach a difficult portion of the task that I have
to perform—the discussion of the income tax. (Hear,
hear.) The first question that this committee has to con-
sider is, whether or not it will make efforts to part with
the income tax at once. I do not say that such an alter-
native is impossible. On the contrary, I believe that by
the conjunction of three measures, one of which must be a
tax upon land, houses, and other visible property, of per-
haps 6d. in the pound, and another a system of licenses
upon trade made universal, and averaging something like
71., and the third, a change in your scheme of legacy duties
—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. W. Williams, and other mem-
bers), it would be possible for you at once to part with the
income tax. But her Majesty's Government do not recom-
mend such a course to the committee. (Hear.) They do
not recommend it because they believe, in the first place,
that such a system would, upon the whole, be far more
unequal, and cause greater dissatisfaction than the income
tax ; they believe, likewise, that it would arrest other be-
neficial reforms of taxation ; and they believe that it
would raise that difficult question in regard to the taxation
of the public funds of this country in a form the most in-
convenient. (Hear.) I might dilate upon this subject,
but it is needless to do so. I leave it to those, if suchthere
be, who are prepared to recommend the immediate aban-
donment of the income tax. Such is not the recommenda-
tion of her Majesty's Government. Now, in regard to the
income tax, I wish that I could possess the committee with
the impression that constant study has made upon my own
mind of the deep and vital importance of the subject. We
are too apt to measure the importance of the subject by
the simple fact that we draw from this tax 5,500,000/. of
revenue. Sir, that sum is a large one, but the mention of
it conveys no idea to the committee of the immense mo-
ment and magnitude of the question. If you want to ap-
preciate the income tax you must go back to the time of
its birth ; you must consider what it has done for you in
times of national peril and emergency—(hear, hear)—you
must consider what, if you do not destroy it—and I will
explain afterwards what I mean by " destroy,"—what it
may do for you again, if it please God that those times
shall return. (Hear, hear.) Sir, in was in the crisis of the
revolutionary war that, when Mr. Pitt found the resources
of taxation were failing under him, his mind fell backupon
the conception of the income tax ; and when he proposed
it to Parliament that great man, possessed with his great
idea, raised his eloquence to an unusual height and power.
There is a description of the speech of Mr. Pitt on that oc-
casion, written by a foreigner, a well-known writer of the
day—Mallet du Pan—which I may venture to read to the
committee ; I believe; after the lapse of 55 years, it will be
read not without interest. (Hear.) This is an account
which, in a periodical that he edited, he gives of Mr. Pitt's
speech in 1798 :
" From the time that deliberative assemblies 'have existed,
I doubt whether any man ever heard a display of this nature
equally astonishing for , its extent, its precision, and the
talents of its author. It is not a speech spoken by the Mi-
nister ; it is a complete course of public economy ; a work,
and one of the finest works, upon practical and theoretical
finance that ever distinguished the pen of a philosopher and.
statesman. We may add this statement to the learned re-
searches of such men as Adam Smith, Arthur Young, and
Stuart, whom the Minister honoured with his quotations."
(Hear, hear.) Ido not know whether this committee are
aware how much the country owes to the former income
tax, but, because I deem it to be of vital importance that
you should fully appreciate the power of this colossal en-
gine of finance, I will venture to place before you, in what
I think an intelligible and a striking form, the results
which it once achieved. I will draw the comparison be-
tween the mode in which your burdens were met during
that period of the war when you had no income tax—dur-
ing that period of the war when you had the income tax
in a state of half-efficiency—and during that last and most
arduous period of the war, when the income tax was in its
full power. From 1793 to 1798, a period of six years, there
was no income tax ; from 1790 to 1802 there was an income
tax, but the provisions of the law made it far less effective
in proportion to rate than it now is ; and from 1806 .to 1815,
a period of 11 years, you had the income tax in its full
force. Now, every one of us is aware of the enormous
weight and enormous mischief that have been entailed
upon this country by the accumulation of our debt—(hear,
hear)—but it is not too much to say that it id demonstrated
by the figures that it need not at this moment have ex-
isted if there had been the resolutions to submit to the
income tax at an earlier period. (Hear.) This test I think
you wit admit is a fair one ; I put together the whole
charge of government and war, together with the charge
of so much of the national debt had accrued before 1793,
so as to make (if I may so express myself) a fair start from
1793. (Hear, hear.) The charge of government and war,
together with the charge of debt incurred -before 1793,
amounted on the average of the six years down to 1798 to
36,030,000/. a-year : the revenue of that period, with all
the additional taxes that were laid on, amounted to
20,626,0001.. a-year ; there was, therefore, an annual excess
of charge above revenue—charge for government, war, and
debt contracted before 1793, including the charge of debt
contracted since 1793—0 f no less than 15,404,0001. (Hear.)
In 1798 you just appreciate the income tax, and immedi-
ately a charge begins. In the four years from 1799 to 1802
the charge for the same items that I have mentioned,which
had been 36,000,0001., rose to 47,413,0001. a-year ' • but the
revenue rose to 33,724,0001. a-year, and the excess for those
four years was diminished by about 2,000,0001. a-year ;
instead of an annual excess of 15,400,0001. over revenue, it
was 13,689,0001. But now look to the operation of the
tax from 1806 to 1815, during the time when your exer-
tions were greatest and your charges were heaviest. The
governmentth the
a contractedfro m 1806
taov elrBalgsa, annual
together expenses xwp
tnhs etsh
oefcwhaarrgalld
e upo
before 1793, was 67,794,000/. ; but you had your income
tax in its full force, and the revenue of the country
now amounted to 63,790,0001—(hear)—and the deficiency,
in actual hard money, which represented something like
double the amount in debt, owing to the rate at which you
borrowed—(hear)—instead of being 15,404,0001. a-year, or
(as it was in the second period) 13,689,0001. a-year, was
only 2,004,0001. a-year from 1806 to 1815. (Hear, hear.)
Such was the power of the income tax. I have said there
was a deficiency annually of 2,004,0001., but it is fair for
you to recollect, and it is necessary in order to present to
you the fact I want to place in clear view, that out of the
65,794,0001. of charge that I have mentioned, about
9,500,0001. were due for charge of debt contracted before
1793, so that if you compare the actual expense of govern-
ment with the whole expense of war from. 1806 to 1815
with your revenue when you had the income tax, it stands
thus before you—that you actually raised 7,000,000/. a-year
during that period more than the charge of government and
the charge of war. (Hear.) That, I must say, is to me a
most remarkable fact. (Hear.) It affords to me the proof,
that if you do not destroy the efficacy of this engine—l do
not raise now the question whether it is to be temporary or
permanent, which I hold to be quite a different question,
and I will go into that by and by—it affords you the means
should unhappily hostilities again break out, of at once
raising your army to 300,000,and your fleet to 100,000,with
all your establishments in proportion. (Hear, hear.)
And, much as may be said of the importance—in
which I concur—of an army reserve and navy reserve, and
of having your dockyards and your arsenals well stored, I
say this fiscal reserve is no less important (hear, hear) ; for,
if it be used aright, it is an engine to which you may re-
sort, and with which, judiciously employed, if unhappily

necessity arise—which may God in His mercy avert (hear,
hear)—with it judiciously employed you may again, if need
be, defy the world. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") This,
then, is the purpose which the income tax has served—
that in the time of vital struggle, it enabled you to raise
the income of the country above its expenditure of war
and civil government (hear), and that service so performed
was performed at a time when men do not minutely in-
quire into the incidence of taxation ; they do not then
indulge themselves in the adjustment of details ; but are
afraid lest they shouki lose the mass and the substance.
(Hear, hear.) But times when the hand of violence is let
loose, and when whole plains are besmeared with carnage,
are the times when it is desirable that you should have the
power of resort to this mighty engine, to make it again
available for the defence and salvation of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, the income tax dropped along
with the purpose of the income tax in 1816. Bnt it was
elestined to be revived. Sir R. Peel, in 1842, called forth
from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war,
to come and assist our industrious toils in peace (hear,
hear) ; and if the first income tax produced enduring and
memorable results, so I am free to say, at less expenditure
by far in money, and without those painful accompani-
ments of havoc, war, and bloodshed (hear, hear)--so has
the second income tax. The second income tax has been
the instrument you have introduced, and which, I hope,
ere long you may perfect, the reform—the effective reform
of your commercial and fiscal system (hear, hear) • and I,
for one, am bold enough to hope and to expect 'that, in
reforming your own fiscal and commercial system, you
have laid the foundations of similar reforms—slow per-
haps, but certain in their progress—through every country
of the civilised world. (Cheers.) I say therefore, sir,
that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with
it we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and
may console ourselves for the annoyances it may have en-
tailed, by the recollection that it has been the means of
achieving great good, immediately to England, and ulti-
mately to mankind. (Cheers.) Let me now attempt to
present to the committee a closer analysis of this duty. I
shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the
Government, that we cannot at the present moment, with
a due regard to the public interests, dispense with the in-
come tax. Let us look a little into its composition. Let
us attempt to investigate the charges that are brought
against it. lam not one of those who make light of those
charges. (Hear.) In my own individual opinion, it is
perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax
was put an end to at the terminatien of the war, that it
is not well adapted for a permanent portion of your finan-
cial system. (Hear.) Whether it is so or not, on which
there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on
all hands agreed—that it is not adapted for a permanent
portion of your fiscal system, unless you can, by recon-
struction, remove its inequalities. (Hear.) Even if you
could remove its inequalities, into which we will patiently
examine, there would still remain in my mind objections
of the gravest character. (Hear, hear.) The reconstruc-
tion of your income tax would, I think, under any circum-
stances, be found to open up social questions of the most
serious import ; and the machinery of the income tax, in-
volving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the
objectionable principle of self assessment, in my opinion,
can never be satisfactory to the country. (Hear, bear.)
First, because self assessment leads to grievous frauds
upon the revenue, and renders the real inequality of the
tax more trying than any of those inequalities which im-
mediately strike the eye and feelings ; and, secondly, be-
cause of the tendency to immorality, which is, I fear, essen-
tially inherent in the nature of the operation. But now let
us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let
me observe that we ale too much in the habit of speaking of
this impost as merely a simple tax ; it is rather a code or
system of taxation. In mere bulk it is a volume ; it has
been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive
years ; it combines a large mass of precedents: and in short
it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which
we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,0001. a
year. One-twenty-eighth part of this sum is 200,0001. Now,
if you investigate the composition of schedule A, you will
find that land and houses—which I take together, because
their position is substantially analogous—including the in-
comes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and set-
tlements, pay no less than 12.28ths of the tax, or about
2,400,003/. Now, let us look at the other great element of
this tax, namely, the payment that proceeds from trades.
In order to get at this payment accurately, we must de-
scend a little deeper than the mere classification of the
schedules. There are in schedule A some considerable
classes of property which pay duty along with land and
houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 27,0001. a
year, which are essentially trading concerns. For the pur-
pose which I have in view I must likewise take out of sche-
dule B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place
it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous
in character. This gives me 330,0001. more, and then I
come to what I may call trades proper—namely, those
which appear in schedule D, and which pay a sum of
something like 1,200,0001. These three branches of trades
in schedules A, B, and D, contribute an income of no less
than 1,800,0001., or 9.2Bths of the whole tax ; and the two
together—that is to say, land and houses and trades, pay
4,200,0001., or 21-28ths of the whole tax. There romain
the funds in schedule 0, which pay 750,0001., or I.7th of
the whole tax, and salaries in schedule E, which pay about
1-17th of the tax. Professions in schedule D, after striking
out those which partake rather of the character of trades,
pay 250,0001., or about 1-22 d of the tax. Thus, we see,
the funds, salaries, and professions make up tl e remaining
4th of the tax—three-fourths being paid by lands and
houses and by trades. It is said that gross inequality is
the characteristic of the tax, and that it ought not to be
leviedal—ikthat itva is unjust
mnijnueostte iotsax precarious and realised in-
precarious, and what income
is realised ? Income derived from trade would, I presume,
th assume
s su
mainm e
be called precarious ; and, without wishing to anticipate
thatqt hu ee
s, judgment
ettcti
hitohneoslmissbate
wiqrsouenfoeedp: thetiminlquestion.
magnitude,
ndc o. mtai
nima
nddei
d Observe ttfaetr committee,
that,may after probably
all,
.s
houses,
buto Ect
sveaes7mwehreien
find,
else,nd p outline
aioynf
rthesips
an income tax of 2,400,0001., and trade pays 1,800,000/. ;
between them they pay three-fourths of the whole tax. It
is, therefore, evident that the justice of the present rela-
tions between land and trade must go a considerable—l do
not say the whole—way towards the solution of the great
question, whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not.
Let us, then, look at the tax as it stands between land and
houses and trade, and if the committee will do me the fa-
vour to follow me in the estimate I am about to enter upon,
it shall be my endeavour to place the matter before them
in as clear a light as possible. My first object is to show
the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say
that realised and precarious incomes ought to pay different
rates, and that therefore the tax ought to bereconstructed,
they forget to inquire whether at the present moment rea-
lised and precarious incomes, as represented by land and
houses on the one hand, andby trades on the other, do not
pay different rates. Let us, in the first place, see at what
rate land and homes pay. Land pays in the gross 7d. in the
pound upon an income not assessed by the possessors of
the property,' but by strangers independent of them, and
this sum is paid without any, the smallest, deduction in
respect of the difference between gross and net income.
(Hear, hear.) It is obvious that, in order to estimate
how much land and houses really pay, we must deduct
the whole of the difference between the gross and the
net income. Nay, we must do more than this, because
the owners of land and houses are not the only
persons beneficially interested in this description of
property ; for instance, a large body of mortgagers
encumbrancers, and life-renters, who, although they pay 7d.'
in the pound on their share of the proceeds of land and
houses, do not make up the difference between gross and net
receipts. In the estimate I am about to submit to the
committee I have been guided by inquiries which every
member is as capable of making as I am. I can only say
that the estimate has been framed in a spirit of modera-
tion, and tested, as well as the case admitted, by reference
to persons most familiar with the subject. About
80,000,000.., the gross income of land and houses, pay the
tax. At 7d. in the pound, this gives, in round numbers,
2,333,0001. What are the deductions which ought to be
allowed for the difference between gross and net income,—
I will not say according to an arbitrary standard of equity
—but if we should break up the present scheme and con-
struct a new one, what should we be called on, and of
course I must say, what should we in justice be compelled,
to allow on this score? In Scotland the difference allowed
between gross and net income from land is known by the
designation of "public burdens." We have no analogous
phrase in England ; but we have the burdens. The first
r repairs, and under this
and draining. Repairs
head I include
rgsllaeatrwrh.ghe
large
charges,dl
chargea rg ngeg,cdhiwii atpier gothhnieon b
land,uc,fto,
(Hear.) You must allow for insurance,
business connected with landed property and
but as regards houses
which it is impossible to
Hear," from the Opposition.) You must
he
conduct
nnueidsdass constitute
iteusistetisi.
tt euol ill
fmel(oa,
allow—l will not say all the cost of management, but as
much of it as you allow to a merchant under schedule D
—you must allow for clerks, sub-agents, ground-bailiffs,
offices, stationery, receipts, and so forth. You must allow
for arrears of rent, and you must likewise allow for what is
called abatement of rent which is a real deduction from
income. (" Hear," from the Opposition.) How much
shall we allow under these heads ? What is the gross de-
duction wo must make from the income of 80,000,000/.
supposed to.be received by the owners of land and houses ?
I take it at 16 per cent. I do not think this is an unfair
estimate ; I am certain that it is, in some instances, a very
low one. (" Hear, hew.," from the Opposition.) If 16 per
cent, be a fair deduction, it is evident we should reduce
the 80,000,0001. subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by
the sum of 12,800,0001., which is actually expended before
the income reaches the pocket of the owner; and, there-
fore, we have arrived at this point, that we have got, in-
stead of 80,000,0001. of income, only 67,200,000/., and this
reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,0001.
(Cheers.) Then I come to another question upon which I
must again resort to conjectural estimate. What is a fair
estimate to make of the total amount of charges on land
and houses all over the kingdom, in respect not only of
mortgages, but of settlements and all other arrangements
of that kind ? I estimate that one-fourth part of !the gross
income derived from land and houses goes into the pockets
not of persons beneficially interested in them, properly
speaking, but into those of mortgagees and others who re-
must deduct the fourth part of
tc
he iev
owners
u n d e r
osfe
Italne
dm
ae nn tds .h
olnf
stehs a
dt
ob
ne
os
to ,r
et
eheeinv
ei appears 111. a t;
but from that sum you
80,000,0001., which reduces their income to 47,200,0001.
then, the net receipt of those
the income tax. Well,
who receive the 20,000,000 L, pay
tbilheeniesofispcupimaolslioytfionn7t:l2rWesßreucriynoilisainwid and dsahyousthese.
e(n"enH'meabrr,a"nfereorms,
let us see what their quota amounts to. Sevenpence in the
of 1 000/. will be left, and this is
houses, and the sum 750 ,
fprooumndtohne 220,3,0:00,00001. paid by the owners of land and
1. gives 583,0001. Deduct this sum
the amount actually paid on an income of 47,200,0001.
If honourable members will
figures I have stated, they w
that the income derived from land and houses is taxed
tiallke find
de thtreourb esloulttotaopbpelythis,
the
from the Opposition benches.) Then,
• there be a prondfacie case for
know is this—supposing
inequality
between theground of inequality
at the rate, not of 7d., but 9d.inthewphoardi
want
teetrso
breaking up the income tax on
you on the
do
greater than that
the two classes, the difference ought to be
t
between the two classes of pnyers, namely, the owners of
land and houses and those engaged in trades,
which now exists ? (Hear.) I do not raise‘vhatever between the
there ought to be any difference
but I _
whole, think that if a difference ought to
whe-
therbheemquacelsetiboentween
ate, land at this moment
pays 9d., and trade 7d. in the pound, an
according to a rational estim ,
and I ask any mode-
rate man whether, if we were now about to establish a
two classes ; I pass the question by ; show you that,
greater than exists at
different rate of
would think of making the difference
last the right hoi.
this moment ? (Cheers.) In December
that realised
gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) proposed.
payment between the two classes, he
kindness to compare
of 54d. Now, if any one will have th
it will
my figures with the right hon. gentleman's proposal,
rates
paid
be found that, within a fraction of a farthing, the .
income should pay a tax of 7d., and perecarious income one
by the two classes of Inc
• ome are at present equivalent
be
object. If that object
income tax it must be for some
houses, it is
to relieve
trade at the expense of land and
about to sanction that purpose
7d. and 54d. (Hear, hear.) If we break up the present
well that those who may be
the pro-
ivalent to
should consider where they are to begin in filing

portions of the payments to be made by different classes, I
and where they are to end. (Hear, hear.) If it be de-
sired
to settle the question according to the views which
have pressed themselves on the minds of many moderate
and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the
right hon. gentleman opposite, and by my hon. friend the
member for Wiltshire in committee—namely, by making
land pay about 4d. and precarious income about 3d., then I
say that object is accomplished, for the payments of the two
classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment.
But let us go further in the consideration of this vastly im-
portant question. I protest against the doctrine of those
who propose to do justice between the two kinds of income
by establishing average classes in each kind. That is the
course advocated by the hon. member for Montrose. The
hon. member is always consistent, and always manful ;
and when lie sees a difficulty he takes no pains to avoid it.
(Laughter.) His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of
artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income
tax, into difficulties which a man acting as a tactician
would avoid. The common notion was that incomes
should be classed in averages. In the name of reason and
common sense I ask, how those who demand equality can
obtain it by averaging classes of income ? Look at an-
nuities. The tables give the value of female life at 15
years of age at 25 years' purchase, but go upwards to 70
or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only five
years' purchase. Yet you propose to average these dissi-
milar classes—to bring up the value of five years' purchase
and bring down the value of the 25 years' purchase.
What possible average can these interests admit of? A
life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of
five years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life
of five years' purchase, when called on to pay three times
as much as he ought that the life of 25 years' purchase pays
only half as much as he should do? (Hear, hear.) Still
more absurd would be the attempt to average trades.
Many trades are worth 25 years' purchase. r venture to
say that if the matter be closely investigated it will be
found that many trades are better, on the whole, than
perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords oppor-
tunities for providing for children and relations such as no
other pursuit presents. (Hear, hear.) Let us, however,
state the case moderately, and say that some trades are
worth 25 years' purchase ; there are others not worth
more than five, four, or three years' purchase, and how
are you to average the interest of a trade worth three
and another worth 25 years' purchase ? I must enter my
protest against this averaging of classes. There is another
topic of a painful nature connected with this branch of the
subject, to which I must briefly allude. We have seen
that laud pays 7d. in the pound according to a standard
of value which does not depend on the will or testimony
of its owner. (Hear, hear.) Trade, on the other hand,
pays 7d. in the pound assessed by each trader himself.
(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that, in the majority of
instances, the returns of the traders aro fairly and honour-
ably made. There are many cases, in trade, in which it
is a matter of extreme difficulty to know what return to
make, and I believe that in these cases the doubt is
solved by the honourable trader against himself, and that
he returns his profits greater than they really are. Let
it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the
trading classes of England generally the conduct which
is pursued by some individuals. I am going to state an
extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been
generally done, but of what can be and has occasionally
been clone. I will mention no names—l will violate no
confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town
where a new street was built. The persons who lived and
carried on business in the old street, which was pulled
down to make way' for the new one, had been charged a
certain amount to the income tax. They had, also, of
course, made returns to a certain amount under the income
tax. When the new street came to be built they claimed
compensation for the loss of their business. The amount
had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the com-
mittee with details, I will state the amount of compensa-
tion which these persons—in number 28—claimed ; the
amount awarded them by the jury, which may be taken
as, on the whole, an approximation to the real value ; and
the amount at which they returned their profits under the
income tax. Mere I to descend to individual cases, it
would be almost impossible adequately to describe the
partly ludicrous and partly shameful aspect which they
assume. I will, therefore, deal with the matter generally,
and say that the 28 persons claimed the sum of 48,1591. as
compensation for their profits for a single year. The
amount of compensation awarded by the jury was 26,9731.,
or a little more than half what was claimed ; but what was
the amount at which they returned their profits for assess-
ment
to the income tax ? They claimed 48,0001. ; they got
from the jury nearly 27,000/. ; but the return of profits for
assessment to tho income tax which they separately made
amounted only to 9,0001. (Much laughter.) I deeply
regret that the great body of honourable men who have
made the name of British commerce famous throughout
the earth, even more for its truthfulness than for its energy,
should be degraded by association with persons who could
perpetrate frauds like these. (Hear, hear.) But at the
same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do
exist; they are inseparable from the character of the im-
post, human nature remaining as it is ; and it is impossible
when you are called upon to consider the question of the
readjustment of the tax wholly to dismiss them from con-
sideration. Now sir, I leave this part of the question
with this proposition, which I think will hardly be contro-
verted—that as regards the state of the case between land
and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration,
there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction
of the income tax. (Hear.) I have three other cases still
to consider ; and first I will take the case of schedule E,
which contains the payments that are derived from the in-
comes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that
no class of persons is included in schedule E, with the ex-
ception of persons connected with the Bank of England,
who may not be called, in one sense or another, public ser-
vants. Some of them may be servants of local or separate
authorities, as for instance the East India Company, but
they are generally servants of her Majesty's Government.
Now, with respect to the case of these public salaries, I
think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such
incomes and life incomes. As they are usually held almost
for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is
little inferior to that of life incomes ; and their inferiority,
in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by
this—that they are usually progressive incomes, while life
incomes are fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dis-
passionate man to draw a distinction between the case of
salaried and life incomes. With regard to remissions upon
salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways.
At present there is a movement among the civil servants of
the Crown for a change in regard to their superannuation
funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The
tide has but lately turned, for it is not very long since the
right hon. member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Healey) made a
motion in this house—and, unless I am much mistaken, he
all but carried it—for reducing salaries of this description
10 per cent. Now, if the right hon. gentleman thinks that
such salaries ought to be reduced by 10 per cent., I would
suggest that it would be better to reduce them by a little
less than 10 per cent. rather than break up the income tax
on this account • but it would be much better to deal
with public salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a
separate arrangement, than to make them the occasion
of an attempt to perform an operation which, up to this
time, all those who have been responsible have unani-
mously declared to be impossible and absurd. Now, sir,
I come to what is supposed to be the sore place of the in-
come tax—schedule C ; and when the committee have
heard what I have to say, I will appeal to their love of
justice, and put it to them whether schedule C, even if it
stood alone, is not rather a reason why they should not
break up the income tax than why they should do so. I
know this is a bold challenge, but see whether I don't
maintain my position. In the first instance I will read to
the committee a testimony that has come from across the
Atlantic, in order to impress upon them the conviction that
when we approach schedule C we begin to tread upon very
delicate ground. We wrote to the United States, to ascer-
tain what was done in that country, where taxes of this
nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds,
and 1 have here a short letter, signed by Mr. Everett,
dated " Department of State, Washington, 10th of Febru-
ary, 1853," in which he says ;
" Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of
your note of the 9th instant, inquiring, by direction of her
Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
whether the public debt of the United States is subject to pro-
perty or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock,
and also whether, in the acts authorising the contracting of
the debts, any provision was made, exempting them from
taxation.

n reply, I have the honour to inform you that there is
nothing in the constitution of the United States, or in the
laws creating the public debt, which prohibits this Govern.
ment from levying a tax on that debt ; the Governments of
the respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this
would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which
is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution."
(Hear, hear.) Now, it appears to me, upon a fair review
of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admit-
ted on all hands—that we are bound to give some rational
construction to those words in the loan acts which provide
that the public dividends shall be paid free of all taxes and
charges whatsoever. I think we are bound to give them a
rational construction. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Pitt thought the
rational construction to give them was, that you should not
look at all to the nature of the obligation, but that you
should consider the dividends simply in relation to the re-
ceiver as so much income. lam bound to say that I think
Mr. Pitt's proposal was the safest and the wisest. It has,
at any rate, been acted upon for more than 50 years, and
under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been
borrowed or reborrowed. (Hear, hear.) I do not mean now
to urge the difficulties you might have in the case of these
acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construc-
tion, but what I do beg you to acknowledge is, that there is
only one other construction, in any sense rational, that
could be given to the words in the loan acts, and it is this
—that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the
mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of
the income, as tested by the price of stock when it is sold.
I will suppose then the proposition now is, that we should
reconstruct the income tax, in order that we may levy the
tax upon something like the capitalised value of the in-
come. Considering the circumstances under which the in-
come tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under
which that change is now suggested, I never can believe
that it would be adopted by a British Parliament. Observe
the effect which it would have upon the interest of the
fundholders. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax ho
said to those persons, "We have nothing to do with the
capitalised valve or with price ; we can look to nothing but
what you receive from year to year." At that time, when
the fundholder was taxed upon his income from year to
year, what was the capitalised value of his income ? Sixteen
years' purchase. That was the average capitalised value of
the fundholder's income for 17 years of the income tax, until
the conclusion of peace. Suppose your new doctrines had
been in vogue then, the fundholder would have paid only
one-half of what he did pay ; and shall I be told that,
after adopting one construction unfavourable at the moment
to the fundholder, and after taxing him on the full value
of his income for 17 years, when he could only have got 16
years' purchase for his property in the market, England
and the English Parliament will now turn round upon that
man, in the manner suggested, when the value of his pro-
perty has risen to 33 years' purchase ? If you now
determine that the capitalised value of the fundholder's
income ought to be taxed, I say that you inflicted
the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he
then consented to pay 10 per cent, upon the value of his
income he had confidence that peace would be restored,
that his income would become more valuable, that faith
would be observed with him—l mean faith according to the
common principles of equity and justice—and that, no Id-
vantage would be taken of that rise in value. But if the
British Parliament sets the example of establishing in tini
of war, when funds are low, the doctrine that you have
nothing to do with capitalised income, and then in time e
peace, when the funds are high, sets up the
opposite of
doc-
trine, I will not merely say that the character of this
nation will not stand as in the time of your fathers
stood, but I warn you that you must abandon e
iditeahoafa
taking the lead among all the borrowers of the world, and
that you must prepare for a change in your relations with
those who have hitherto trusted you. (Hear, hear.) There
are persons who say, " We ought to tax incomes at differ-
ent rates, accordingly as they proceed f
skill." In fact, they would place incLasm propert incomes on the one side, and lazyor from
incomes (a the other.
nous
Now, in my
opinion, a great deal may be said infavour of that doe-

trine, but observe the effect it must have with regard to
the public revenue. The landholder must exertrii-nylf
with resp_f...ci to his land, the ilopselioldtx as to his houie
and the mortgagee must either look out himself, or yis'
lawyer for looking out after his money,—.:ead. I do not
he
b-
lievethere is any income which is perfectly and entirely a
i lazy ncome, except the income of the fundholder. (Hear,
and a laugh.) If that were so, the fundholder would enjoy'
an entire pre-eminence in taxation, and the degree of that
pre-eminent it would rest with you to fix. Ihonour the
sense of justice of the hon. member for Montrose, and so I
honour the sense of justice of those gentlemen—the ac-
tuaries—who have recommended the fundamental recon-
struction of this tax, and who do look at the durability of
incomes. If they had made their proposals in 1798, Ido
not know that the fundholders would have hadmuch
reason to complain; but, on the contrary, I believe
that, upon the whole, they would have been gainers. I
think, however, that the proposal of the actuaries is un-
sound in principle. I conceive that it is unsound in prin-
ciple to levy the income of the country in substance by a
tax upon its property, for I think that income is the
proper basis of taxation. I do not mean, however, to
hold that as an extreme doctrine, but, if we have a pro-
perty tax at all, let us have, in substitution for the income
tax, a good and honest property tax, such as the actuaries
propose. Unfortunately the actuaries have the plan which
they recommend entirely to themselves, for no one has
ever been found to propose it in this house. In fact, no
body will propose that plan, for every one knows that it
is a mathematical speculation upon paper. It is not a
project to be submitted to an assembly of men whose
bounden duty it is to provide by practicable means for the
constantly recurring wants and services of the country.
The project of the actuaries I pass by, because, while it is
of all others the most self-consistent, it is also, I will not
say the most difficult, but it is placed the farthest beyond
the reach even of imagination as a possible measure. Now,
I will request the committee to go yet further with me
upon one more point with regard to the funds, which I
think to be highly practical in its character, and which I
beg to commend to their particular attention. I have used
every means in my power to analyse the means in which
the funds are held. In old times there was a very
general belief in the existence of hobgoblins. [An hon.
member exclaimed, in a tone of earnestness, which
occasioned much laughter, "Of what 1"] Of hobgob-
lins (the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, amid
renewed laughter), and now throughout the country you
may here and there find those who have a somewhat
analogous conception of an awful being they call the fund-
holder, whom they picture as rolling-in wealth, and living
in worthless indolence upon the toil and sweat of his
country—(Hear, and a laugh)—but it is very difficult to
find out whether the existence of this monster is a fact or
a fiction. I cannot obtain a complete analysis of the man-
ner in which the funds are held. The State, as we know,
has no knowledge upon the subject. The Bank of Eng-
land, which pays the dividends, knows only one circum-
stance, and that is whether the dividend is paid to a joint
account or a sole account. A very remarkable change has
been taking place of late years in the manner in which the
funds are held. About 15 years ago the funds were chiefly
held in sole accounts by individuals, and I think you may,
upon the whole, take it nearly for granted that the sole
accounts indicate—and I speak in the presence of practical
authorities—absolute property, with some few exceptions.
So lately as 15 years ago much more than one-half of the
stocks were held in sole accounts, and therefore represented
absolute property ; but mark the change tqat has taken
place. At present it is otherwise. The whole amount of
stock held in sole accounts is at the present moment
280,000,0001., and out ofthat about 60,000,0001. represents
the incomes of persons who aro exempt from the income
tax by reason of their incomes being under 1501. a-year.
There is, therefore, a sum of about 220,000,0001. held by
persons who may be considered as holding perpetuities in
the funds, and whom the reformers of the income tax would
regard as entitled to the distinction of exemption from
that tax. Now, the amount held in joint accounts was in
February, 1852, 427,000,000/.—(hear,• hear)—and I have
no doubt that it is at this time much more. One-third of
the funds, upon the whole, are held in sole accounts, and
two-thirds in joint accounts. Now, what do these joint
accounts mean? I will tell you very nearly what they
mean. These joint accounts may be divided, I believe,
into five classes, one or other of which may be taken as in-
cluding very nearly the whole. In the first place, the joint
accounts include a large class of charities, comprehending
the great account of the Commissioners of the National
Debt for savings' banks, amounting to 33,000,003 i. These
sums are all by law exempt from income tax. Then, in
the second place, we have the Chancery and Bankruptcy
accounts, amounting to between 50,000,003/. and
60,030,000/. I don't imagine that it is the desire of this
committee, or of the reformers of the income tax, to lay
upon the moneys locked up in Chancery and Bankruptcy
an exceptional tax. A third class which enters into the
joint accounts is made up of those cases in which English
firms—particularly banking firms also—hold large sums of
money on account of foreigners. I imagine that, although
Englishmen who have investments in the funds very com-
monly hold them in their own names, it is very common
for foreigners to have stock held in the names of their
banking or mercantile correspondents. It has been a po-
pular doctrine to tax the foreigner, but I think that no
person in this house would wish to tax the foreigner in
this particular form. It has been a long-contested ques-
tion with respect to income tax in England whether the
foreigner is not entitled to exemption altogether. The late
Sir R. Peel subjected him to taxation in 1842, but the pro-
posal was strongly opposed, and I think every member of
this house will agree that it would be very impolitic to lay
an exceptional tax of this kind upon the foreigner. The
fourth class interested in joint accounts, and a very large
class too, is the class indicated by life interests less than
perpetuity. When Mr. Horsman made a proposal with
reference to the income tax in 1848, one of his main
foundedargu-
at
won h
ohhe
pa
obr
ps u re
tdui
ty.t
oosf
areax taxing
el idf
.e not ef rel
es
amt etnhtes swa ma s e ate
for
re
tihnecolmifee-itoaterreesftormmeez
ahodavfeewhaoactmuenthl less compassion
e s
seemed
t
o
regard their case at all. My opinion is that, if the
income tax were reconstructed it would be very diffi-
cult to shut out the life-interest men ; but surely it
would be very hard to raise the tax upon the funds as far
as regards that large portion of holders who have a mere
life interest. The fifth class interested in joint accounts
consists of trading companies and associations holding funded
property. Now, are you to lay an exceptional tax upon the
capital of persons so engaged in trade ? I should say that
it is very much better to leave English trade where it is,
paying 7d. in the pound, in the place of the 9d. paid
by land and houses, and with the power of invest-
ing money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes
of banking, or for other Wades, without the fear of excep-
tional taxation, than to break up the whole system, and
ensconce the trader in schedule C, that you may reimburse
him by exceptions in schedule D. Now, the strongest case
urged for the reconstruction of the tax is the case of sche-
dule C ; but in schedule C, against 220,000,0001. held by
persons in their own right, you have 430,000,000/. not held
by persons in their own right as mere individual property,
and when you have established your exceptional tax against
the funds, your very next step must be to exempt the
whole of this 430,000,0001. Well, that is what I have to
say upon schedule C. I shall now touch very briefly upon
the remaining case of schedule D—that is to say, of
i sche-
dule D as respects the professions. I have made t my
business, Sir,- to ascertain what proportion of the whole
payment under schedule C proceeds from professional per-
sons, and I find that, including certain amphibious classes,
it is above 300,000/., or rather more than one-twentieth
part of the whole income tax ; but there are several per-
sons who are returned as professional persons who, for the
purpose of a new classification of the income tax, must be
considered as traders, such as auctioneers, house-agents,
and farm-agents. The country surgeon frequently com-
bines with his profession the trade and capital of a drug-
gist and apothecary. Solicitors, again, in many places
are, to no small extent, considerable capitalists ; their ca-
pital is invested in their trade, and the income tax must
ba paid upon it as it would upon capital invested in any
other trade. Taking these mixed cases out, the net sum
that may be said to be paid by the professions is about
250,000,000/., which is about 1-22 d part of the whole in-
come tax. Now, Sir, Ido not at all deny that the case of
professional men appeals to the sympathies. In my opinion
it is one of the reasons which indicates that the tax ought
to be a temporary tax ; but I hope the committee will
pause before it rushes to the conclusion that upon account
of the case of professional men (for I think I have in some
degree disposed of the other cases) they will proceed to
such a labour. I will not call it an Herculean labour, be-
cause an Herculean labour means a labour that Hercules
could accomplish, and this I am persuaded he could not ;
but to such a labour as that of breaking up and reconstruct-
ing the income tax. (Hear, and a laugh.) It would be a
pity to find yourselves compelled to break up the income
tax on account of those whose case is so limited in com-
parison to the whole range of the tax that they only pay
1-22 d part of the amount. But then you may say, " Why
not exempt them altogether ; why not give them a fa-
vour?" And there is a great deal in point of feeling to re-
commend that ; but there is a great deal in point of feeling
to recommend many things in this world of ours, upon
examination of which you find insuperable obstacles in the
way of giving scope to that feeling. (Hear, hear.) Now,
I will tell you why you cannot exempt professional in-
comes without breaking up the scheme of the tax. In the
first place there are the auctioneers, house-agents, farm-
agents, and others I have referred to, now nestling within
the professions, with whom there would be considerable
difficulty if there were an attempt to exclude them from
benefits to which persons in the position of professional
men were to be entitled. Again, you would have great
difficulty in knowing what to do with the clergy. Your
feeling would tend with equal force both ways. You would
think it extremely offensive to reconstruct the income tax
on behalf of professional men, and yet to make the clergy-
man with 1501. or 2001. a year pay the higher rate. (Hear,
hear.) But,'if you let him in, lam not so sure that you
would be pleased to extend the same favour to the dean
and the bishop. (Hear.) You will find the same difficulty
there ; but there are other and more serious difficulties
than those. Many persons holding salaried offices—not
public servants—now charged in schedule D, have certainly
a much worse tenure, and an inferior interest in their in-
comes than professional men. Above all, there is what I
warned you of in respect to averaging classes. A large
class of retail traders have an interest in their trades muc inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and
trades, and businesses change hands much quicker. They
are creatures of to-day, gone to-morrow; and professional
comparedtoehfonattisiatdhdeeeryr: with
eaarc.)ertlaimn
men, as a class, putting aside the exceptional case of permanencesick-
sthmt
ee
yae smaller
Cie itselfokr me classwlikewise
tsoe
difficultyde-
scriptionust
n eawarnahee owe,
of
when
nme ti
midstl greatestof
their...
iw.iaillthfiend
breaking up of the income tax, the case of the life annul.
tants. Let me for a moment put it to you who these
people are. Professional persons, at all events,
are men
charged by the Almighty with the'
care ofw ives and chil-
dren, and, generally, with a capacity to discharge that
duty. But when you come lifet annuitants, you then
deal with the desolate widow, with the orphaned daughter,
with the defenceless woman
whose right it is to expect at
your hands justice, tendernels, and protection. Are their
incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady
who has been bred in th lap of luxury, and who then upon
the death of her parent e finds herself with the interest of
5,0001. or 6,0001. to live upon for the remainder of her
days. I want to know whether that is to be subjected to
the higher tax as an income from realised property? Will
you then tell me that upon the daughter and the widow
you will lay that exceptional tax, and yet speak of doing
justice, because you put the higher tax upon her in order
that you may put the lower tax upon bankers and brewers,
and physicians and lawyers ? (Hear.) I appeal to yon as
men upon this point. I am convinced, whether the views
of the present overnment be right or wrong, whether our
propositions meet your approbation or whether they do
not, that you never
will consent to draw that distinction
in favour of the great and energetic commerce of this
country-, and against the pittances on which the great por-
tion of these women subsist.. (Hear.) Sir, the unparal-
leled indulgence of the committee—(cheers)—has brought
portion me nearly to the close of this of the subject, and
there is but one more point that I need refer to. It is
commonly supposed that it is either some crotchet of an
individual, or the general laziness and inattention of offi-
cial persons to their duties, that prevents them giving
effect to the wishes which many gentlemen laudably enter.

whicli]
taro to see these inequalities of the income tax,
wilt p(
not ,ieny, re aov '.l br aro ..)-a.i.ti.;tio'i - bot I visas
oat the kiud of difficult in which you find your,
015,1
volved when you set about that work, for I can
credit fo
fairly say—and I think if Ido not command e7,,ii,4
as an individual, yet that the characters of my end
wiil fal
wiil demand full credit for them—l can trulY,nwe co
say that it has been our most earnest desire,
utLe feel]
with justice attain that object, to consult the P (';,, as
in regard to the proposition which we might insndfott
the income tax. (Cheers.) We have therefore
r:nud sr,
and laboriously turned over the question again i,ich it
and have put it, I believe, in every light in %Ili-0)0
capable of being viewed; and now I will just gips t, reel
specimen of the way in which, when ou set about i
struction of this tax, you find yourselves inyolval•yojito;
suppose that, if the income tax be differentiated,
I extend the favour to what are called terminable 3n.n...%0
The terminable annuitants expire in 1860, and tintei:
a favourable case for those who wish to break tjPit, It
come tam. Of course, they will get the benefit of of i
are worth so many years' purchase, and no niolLoyci
*an tell exactly how much represents interest anoiiroio9,
capital. You proceed, then, by exempting the term yog`:
annuitants. Is that all? By no means. -Win" t essil
with Government life annuitants ? Must you net 0 al"
them also ? Is not their case substantially the ~3'„ for
the others? A man lays out money on an annillooo.
life. Although the term of life is uncertain, such au of 1)'
has just as fixed a price in London as an anon' /rid
expiry of which you fix the date. On the same r_lif‘a
therefore, you must exempt the Government life arlo flat'
as you do the terminable annuitants ; but, if Y°11304,,.,
you cannot think of anything so monstrous as v rti
terests for life, or for a term upon leasehold Prs:l i
How will you be able to tax a man who has sulirthereiii
j
on which he has paid a heavy fine, and of whim' boll‘,l
term of five or ten years unexpired ? The great alga .
the interest in the property is not his, but the tan tor
.
the reversioner's, and you must evidently give boas,
fote, a share of the exemption. Then I must age I''
you of the class holding life interests in the funds' o (10J
can't draw a distinction between life interests in ' to sr,
and life interests in leaseholds. They must help _O7
the goodly company of exemptions. After theaJoi.
those who hold jointures and other annuities IV°
,tIP
Certainly, a life annuity in the funds is one thilife'to:
life annuity upon land is another ; but the life in, ce
the individual is alike in both cases. When you il;1,0,
those in, what do you do with life renters and Wi
4.!
2 second
a ,
successor of entailed estates, who may be a
,pe
living in the East Indies whom his predecessor n. 1314
have seen, and in whom he has no interest ? This pstr
tedious to the committee, but these are practical (iiiilV,
(Hear, hear.) Ido not say that there are no digit or
between each of them. But what I say is this, tb3,tf o'l
you come to define those distinctions, and to trelai,,
on the broad ground upon which you take your staff ii4'
___u;ll 0,,
say, "Here you will be exempt—there you
mm 'l,
exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes OP,
mentioned with respect to which arguments for eseiltY,
might not easily be applied. The tendency 0f..,°/ac,
exemptions, however, is the breaking up and dept
of the tax. I do not say " relinquishment," beoll'oti
linquishment is one thing and breaking up i 8 L'•re!`
Relinquish it for a time, and when emergencies foil e
may do as your fathers did—take down the weaP°oo4
the shelf, and make it serve you again for the end, to
(Cheers.) To relinquish it is altogether safe, be ors;
t,all
altogether honourable. But to break it up is to eLI ~'
the Mouse of Commons to venture upon schemes o f
ff
may look well on paper, and may serve the purpOtfleos
moment, but which will end in the destruction of P
by the absurdities and iniquities which they involvei,
if that is to be done it must be by those whose cooseter,
enable them to take a different view of the characb 41,''
of the destiny of this great country. It will net ea?:
by men who believe that, although you may enter d.
that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you Will
mires, will throw the whole finances of the en3l/41.4
confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and 11;30„
resort to which hitherto you have been able in 040;
look as a course open to you in circumstances of wi,of Y
and trouble. (Cheers.) Sir, the general views of V,
jesty's Government with respect tobthe income tag ,ii,,i it
it is an engine of gigantic power for great mai° sar
poses, but at the same time that there are circevii
attending its operation which make it difficult, rilf
1;0 0
impossible, in our opinion not desirable, to main- of (
a portion of the permanent and ordinary finance°d
country. (Cheers.) The public feeling of its i'le,, iir ,
,
is a fact most important in itself. The inquisitit°',4ll.
tails is a most serious disadvantage. And the
11.""
which it leads are evils which it is not possible °I ,A
terise in terms too strong. (Hear, hear.) Oneqe i'',
•
hope this house will never do, and that is iii,bvl.O'
great public questions. Don't let them adopt 004 v,
'reconstructing the income tax to-day, and saying! t 0.,,,
does not work well, we'll try our hands at it againt.e,a
row." That is not the way in which the relations 4V.,.
are to be treated. Depend upon it when you- earn°,4,3Y:
quarters with this subject, when you come to meas-o
see the respective relations of intelligence and laiVepi
property, and when you come to represent those „ers°.
in arithmetical results, you are undertaking an °lld‘',„'
which I should say it was beyond the power of mall or.,
duct with satisfaction, but which, at any rate, is I or.
tion to which you ought not constantlyto recur; for
,;I,l°,
hon. friend once said very properly, this country c° oat,
bear a revolution once a-year, I will venture to al.,.(1001c
could not bear a reconstruction of the income no, 0 y -
year. (Cheers, and a laugh.) Whatever yon . old
gard to the income tax, you must be bold, you TA
intelligible, you must be decisive. You must 11c't ogix with it. If you do, I have striven at least to ponifis
well as my feeble powers will permit, the almao litf :4'
camt
ohi no lsbytye
votauohlfeu
vital
willagrb valuable
s saibmmebporenogrgautciaahilnycjoelf: fiteolity:/in; '
yourtion I
resoucowunoultrdlyo
jeopardisingrces.
you keep this tax or whether you part with it, tso'l,,,''
should either keep it or leave it in a state in which '''be i,'"
be fit for service on an emergency, and that it ivillaewj;
possible to do if you break up the basis of yourine°2,:avir, (Hear, hear.) Then you will ask me, "On what i" t,'
woo f!
do you mean to proceed ?—you have made an argul bows
country,
:no: iolefve certainly
iriett
far as you have gone, to show that the tax cann° a 03',
constructed or amended." What we wish to do, au er
P till
we shall aim at doing by the measure which I shall foda
is this :—We wish, in the first place, to put anend I',c
uncertainty respecting the income tax. (Cheers.in fel j
think it unfortunate that political ircuinstance' 1'61.64
the last two or three years led toa statee of doubt in mo lif
to the continuance of the tax, and have even hegtSlitti
degrees a feeling on the part of the c public that the
~,,c,„is
is about to be entrapped unawares into its perr,a f ,
(Hear, hear.) My belief is, that much of the une'," say, '
ing that prevails is traceable to that source, and 1 s'"" 'ir
far from thinking that the mere asking of the comp;
to renew this tax for a given term, in opposition tc' , 0,1
you to make it perpetual, would be sufficient to an:„sy eV:A
anxiety or to remove that doubt. There are a certain boot i
of transactions with regard to which the uncertaintrt,', VA i
the income tax tends most unfavourably—such ao:r„ tY,I
minable annuities, for example. It is very desiraw.rtbi,;
certainty should be restored to these transactions., '„1,1 i', it also most desirable that effectual measures on-A ~
taken to mark this tax as temporaryßat 1 -Of
a tax.. ao A
so much mean to commit the Government to an& o";
opinion to be acted upon in future years. °L.' a5l
opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the,'S"flit,
permanent ordinary portion of our finances. But : tell
state the wish of the Government ~to proposeii'
porary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their words to°ll Of
them or yourselves as to what you will do under ropc'i,
cumstances at the expiration of the term which We Poitil;
to fix for its continuance now. I propose by P,,,00';
enactment, by the measures which I shall invite Jitoll
adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament ins potiv
position that at a given period it may, if it think fit'0 '
withithat tax. (Cheers.) We are most anxious to 01';
what can be done, in order to meet the public feelin4o' bsfi
the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling wigafiaf
not only respect, but sympathy, while we do ootatie 4
that it is our duty, as persons charged with the cono fa.,
public affairs, to shape our measures according, vej 0,
feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have examined 0
practical form which they are to take, and tried it liyao,
light of our understanding. (Hear, hear.) Wo Prt(f)oo,f
sir, to introduce certain mitigations into the opOra.,ie
the income tax. We propose to extend the prineld'oj„,
commutations, which is now applicable only to ill; nit~,
professions also. (Hear, hear.) A more important 15
gation which we propose to make is this :—Thorfo the
general feeling that a man ought to have, at any I,_.'" ill)°,
opportunity of investing the savings he may maa° te,
his income without being liable to the income tai. •003
them. We do not think it possible to make pr°,."- ~
of that kind applicable to savings simply as sua"clar,
we can do is to say, "If you choose to invest
your It ft 1,
in the form of a deferred annuity or life assuran''''ol9
premium which you may pay upon that deferred annoloil
or life assurance up to one-seventh of your incoloLetel
not be chargeable to your income tax, but may be del,-ea';'
from your income tax before it is charged." (Hear, ~10!
I am not at all prepared to say that we would stop a' ill°
if it were possible to do more. At the same tinie'llo, plan has considerable recommendations. Ido not sao
14iv it will meet the case of persons who being affiictect,,,,o sickness cannot, except under peculiar
circums"`-tl,l
insure their lives, because, unfortunately, cases of et.
sort it is beyond the power of the Legislature 021111!
But what Ido say is this—that it is a relief which Or admit of very extensive application. I cannot reck°ll,e/ the reduction from the receipts of the tax in conseflitp
of it will be less—though, of course, it is an uncertw'o
when we look to the total amount of life assurance i°oferf
country—than 120,0001. a year. It establishes, ho
no invidious distinctions between one class and an°f it;
It is open to all those who choose to avail themselves,?,
but while it is open to them all, we know that pra.,e'pjs/
the classes who are in the habit of assuring their iirtf(r
just those very classes whom it is your main objectiool
lieve by the reconstruction of the tax—namely, the c del'
of professional men and of persons who are depeni t°
upon their own exertions. I think it will be necessatil.?
propose that Government should itself become assobif
of life. If it is to undertake that charge, as will pr°olo°
be the case, it will assure on the same principles as, 00°
on which it is now a vendor of life annuities. But t° til
I say that our object is to meet the public feeling as do°,
inequality of the tax, and while I specify these ra° 1.4.'
goinr., some way to effeA that object, I have more t°,,, oe.
before you upon this subject. And pray understand of
Do not let me through my neglect be misunderst°ol
fail to state clearly the position of the Government. _ IC'
we understand to bo the sentiments of the count i'''
what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are dispel, too
share in, is, that the income tax bears upon the whf iii,
hard upon intelligence and skill, and not hard enoures;f;
property as compares; with intelligence and skill. trsei4
hear.) I hope that I state with accuracy, not the Phe /I
measures that we propose, but the object whiell.a%ll,l?.ll
constructors of the income t&x have in view. "#. FP,
that be their object—if they think that at preeen.,,,"aert; and intelligence are too severely pressed, and that Pi!" Ord under the income tax pays too little, let me remain
that they must not form their judgment of the 010194 of classes from one single tax, or from another sing „Doi,
but that they must look to the general effect of the Co o'
system of taxation. (Hear, hear.) And all I iroPlll r'°'
them in that respect at this moment is, that they gnsrefoi
serve their decision upon the question whether the:_.7i 000
meat proposition sufficiently meets the case of w'' DO'
intelligence, as compared with property, until thoftbel
heard me throughout, if their kindness will pernait,egsf`f
to do so. (Hear, hear.) Our proposition, then, itl,„:it for to the income tax is this :--We propose to renor_,;,oo"t
two years from April, 1853, at the rate of 7d. in the rat it
The committee will recollect that I said we arta the
our duty to look the whole breadth of this diffiell,blaoor:g
face—not to endeavour to escape it, not to eime°'„file_,l.:; attenuate, but to settle, if the committee would en') rfi, the whole question of the income tax. (Hear, hor'',A.l3ll;
propose, then, to re-enact, it for two years, from frol',,
.1853, to April, 1855, at the rate of 7d. in the pound',Jo tip;
April, 1855, to enact it for two more years at 60* yer
pound—(alight murinurs)—and then, for three inlacil —(laughter and murmurs from the Opposition... 4 (10%
which prevented the conclusion of the sentence) 40
wonder at the laughter—for three more years—fr°2o,3l '' s
1857', at sd. (Hear, hear.) Under this proPo,lo
income Utz will oxpiro on the sth of April,llB6o. I'l