The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-07 00:00:00

CARLISLE ELECTION.

Mr. DIVETT brought up the report of the Com-
mittee appointed to try the merits of the election for
Carlisle, reporting that Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Dixon
were not duly elected as Members to serve in Parlia-
ment for Carlisle, and that the last election was a void
election.
On the motion of Mr. DIVETT, a new writ was
issued for the election of two Members to sit in Par-
liament for Carlisle.
SECOND READINGS.

The East and West Looe Harbour and Bridge
Bill, the Great Yarmouth Coal Duties Bill, and the
Norwich and Yarmouth Navigation Bill, were read a
second time, and ordered to be committed.
PENZANCE WATER-WORKS. _ _

On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
Sir C. LEMON opposed the second reading, and
moved that it be read that day six months.
After some discussion the second reading was post-
poned to Friday next.
The River Nene Improvement and Drainage Bill
was read a second time and ordered to be committed.
SEVERN NAVIGATION.
On the motion that the Severn Navigation Im-
provement Commission Bill be read a second time.
Captain BERKELEY moved that it be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. HOPE seconded the motion.
Mr. R. SPOONER supported the second reading
of the Bill. _ _ _

Mr. SLANEY opposed the second reading of the
Bill, and trusted that the House would throw it out.
Lord INGESTIVE thought it would be a great
injustice to the country not to allow the Bill to go
into Committee.
Mr. LAI3OUCHERE supported the second read-
ing of the Bill on public grounds, in order that its
merits might be inquired into.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading .. 91
Against it
- Majority —l3

The Bill was accordingly lost.
Mr. COBDEN presented several petitions against
the income-tax.
Lord 11. VANE presented a petition against any
alteration in the navigation laws.
Lord BRACKLEY presented a petition in favour
of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. _ _

_
Mr. WAWN presented a petition from Falmouth
against the income-tax.
NOTICES OF MOTION. _ _

Mr. GRANTIEIBERKELEY gave notice that
on an early day he should move that all standing
orders relating to the House be rescinded, being
vain, impossible, and of no utility whatever.
TnE CASE OF ANNETTE MEYERS.

Mr. ENVART wished to know from the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment whether it was the intention of the Government
to carry into execution the sentence recently passed
upon Annette Meyers for the murder of a soldier in
S. James's Park ?

Sir G. GREY said that he could give no other
answer than that the only official communication he
had received upon the subject was from a letter ad-
dressed to him by the Lord Chief Baron, stating the
verdict of the jury, and that it was accompanied
with a strong recommendation to mercy.
STATE OF THE FLEET AT MALTA.

Lord INGESTRE wished to know from the
Hon. Member for the West Riding whether the
report of his speech at a meeting at Manchester,
with respect to the fleet at Malta, was substantially
correct.

Mr. COBDEN said that when the naval estimates
came before the House he should be very happy to
justify every word which he had said on the subject,
and probably the Noble Lord would upon that occa-
sion be; prepared to refute the facts which he had
stated, and which were in the main correctly given
in the report which appeared in the Manchester
Guardian.

Mr. HUME wished to know whether the fleet had
been withdrawn from the Tagus ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that Admiral Napier
had received orders to return home.
WAR WITH MEXICO.

Mr. ROBINSON wished to know from the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the
Government were in possession of any official intelli-
gence announcing the cessation of hostilities in
Mexico ?

Lord PALMERSTON said that he had reason to
believe that when the last accounts left Mexico nego-
tiations for peace were going on, but he could not
state whether an actual cessation of hostilities had
taken place.
WAYS AND MEANS.

The CHAN. CEL L OR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the order of the day for going into Committee
of Ways and Means.
Mr. URQUHART rose for the purpose of making
some explanations on a matter personal to himself.
He stated that on Wednesday last the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had attributed to
him corrupt motives in making the statements
which he made on a former occasion with re-
spect to the conduct of the Noble Lord in the
Foreign Office the motive was this, that he
(Mr. Urquhart), upon being removed from
office, had made these charges, and continued
to make them. In reply to that charge, he begged
to state, first, that he had been in conflict with the
Noble Lord from the first moment in which they
came into contact, upon all matters connected with
foreign affairs, and, from the year 1834 the Noble
Lord had not ceased to use " underhand " means of
injuring him—(Order, order)—and, secondly, that all
those charges which he had made against the Noble
Lord he had made previous to the year of his
appointment to office ; and further, that he had never
made it any ground of complaint that he had been
removed from office, but that, on the contrary, he
expressed to the Noble Lord his gratitude for
being removed from the duties of his office.
His course had been consistent from the beginning to
the end, and he therefore called upon the Noble
Lord, if he did not retract the words he used on
Wednesday, to lay the correspondence he had alluded
to on the table of the House.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he could not re-
tract opinions that were settled on his mind.—(Hear,
hear.) He had no objection to lay the correspondence
on the table of the House which had been published in
all the newspapers.—(Hear, hear.) If his views
and those of the Hon. Member were at variance, he
must confess his only surprise was that the Hon.
Member should have accepted an appointment
under a person with whose opinions he differed.--
(Hear, hear,) As to the statement that his ob-
ject was to undermine the Honourable Member,
he could assure him that he had no such intention,
and, as a proof of that, he might state that although
he was told that he had done an injudicious act in ap-
pointing the Hon. Member, having done so he was
determined to maintain it, and the Hon. Member
went out.
A great number of petitions were then presented
against the renewal of the income-tax.
WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of Ways and Means,
Mr. HUME said that he felt considerable diffi-
culty in consequence of the course that had been
adopted by the Government. It was usual before
any new tax was imposed for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to state to the House his expected
receipts and expenditure, and if there was a
deficiency, to state how it was intended by
the Government to make it up. Now the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government
stated the other night that according to the calcula-
tions he had made the income of the country would
amount to 51,250,0001., while the expenditure would
be 54,596,0001., making a deficiency of 3,500,0001.,
which, with the deficiency of last year, would make a to-
tal of nearly 5,000,0001. Now the Noble Lord, in order
to make up that deficiency, proposed to add two per
cent. upon incomes, which he calculated would produce
5,464,0001. The Government had subsequently
withdrawn the proposition for increasing the tax
upon income, and they now proposed to continue
the- tax of three per cent. only. Now he
wanted to 'cow hew the deficiency was to

be made up. He had never known an instance, where
the expenditure exceeded the income, of the house
going into a Committee of Ways and Means in order
to adopt a certain tax without its being first informed
by the Government how they proposed to make up
the deficiency; he wished therefore to know from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he
proposed to make up the deficiency. They
ought to be told whether the proposed increased
expenditure was abandoned or not, because supposing
the expenditure of the present year was no more than
that of last, there would still be a deficiency of a
million of money, and he wanted to know how that
deficiency was to be made up. He appealed to the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member tor Tam wor th
whether he knew any instance where such a course
was adopted as that Government was now pur6iiing ?
Sir lt. PEEL said it had not been the practice of
his own Administration to require votes cf money
before making a statement of ways and means, but
he was acquainted with several instances where such
a course was adopted before he came into office.
The House then went into Committee, and
On the vote for the continuance of the income-tax
being

Mr.'IIUME said he must repeat his question, and
he hoped if the Right lion. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were not deaf he would answer his
question. There were two important points which
tie wished to have explained. The first was the
deficiency—he wanted to know how it was to be
made up; and in the next place he was anxious to be
informed whether Government were then prepared
to meet the increase of the estimates.—Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he was perfectly ready to answer the questions
of the Honourable Member, but he must first
assure the Hon. Member that had he paid attention
to what was stated the . other night he would have
had no occasion to put them.—(Hear, hear.) He
stated then that Government did not propose to make
any reduction in the army and navy estimates, and
he, therefore,, proposed the appointment of the
Committees, with the view of assisting the House
in its determination upon that question. The
miscellaneous estimates, however, they were anxious
to have reduced, and if, after making these reductions
and abandoning the additional income-tax, there still
remained a deficiency, Government proposed to make
it up out of the balances in the .Exchequer.—(Hear.)
Mr. HERRIES said the answer was alto-
gether unsatisfactory, and could in no way be
treated as a reply to the questions put by
the lion. Member for Montrose. This was the second
budget they had received. The first budget
contained a revision of the revenue and a pro-
position to increase the income-tax, which
was afterwards very properly abandoned. By the
second budget the deficiencies were proposed to be
made up out of the balanceslin:the Exchequer, which
certainly appeared to him to be a most unconstitutional
course for Government to adopt.—(Hear, hear.)
He called the attention of the House to the impro-
priety of that course . if the balances in the Ex-
chequer were diminished they must throw themselves
on the 13ank in just the same proportion as they
diminished their balances of cash.—(Hear, hear.) And
was it right with the present Bank Act ie operation to
have resort to such a course ?—(Hear, hear.) Unless
some more correct provision were made, he thought
that the House ought not to accede to the motion.
Mr. HUME thought that the present was the case
of a man who acted as trustee for another holding a
balance in hand, and out of that balance
takes a certain sum and appropriates it
to other purposes, hoping at some time or other to
make it up. It was not for him to say what evil
results had many times followed such a course of con-
duct. The difficulties ought fully and fairly to he
met. The public had decided that they would not have
increased taxation ; there was only one other course
left, and that was to reduce the expenditure.—(Dear.
hear.) He was most anxious to maintain the public
credit, but he thought that if the Government were
allowed to go on blindfolded in this way they would
bring themselves to the very verge of bankruptcy.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.) If the balances were to
be appropriated there would of necessity be required
a large amount of " deficiency bills," and it was just
possible that when these bills were issued the Bank
would not be able to assist them.—(Hear, hear.)
The present proposal was a mere attempt to bridge
over the difficulty instead of meeting the case boldly at
once. He trusted that the House would not agree to
the tax for more than one year, in order to afford
time for the Committee to turn itself round and con-
sider what retrenchments it would be advisable to
make. He was most happy to see that there
was no falling off' in the revenue, notwith-
standing the large amount of indirect taxation
which had been taken off by the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel.) It was
their duty at once to tell her Majesty's Government
that they ought to do as other persons in difficulties
would do, viz., endeavour to keep the expenditure
within their income. lie proposed therefore that the
income-tax should be granted for a period of one year
only.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion.

i The question having been put,
Mr. HUME again rose for a moment, and said that it
was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on
his proposition.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
rose and said, that from some of the observations of the
Hon. Gentleman he derived this comfort, at all events,
viz , to find that he had stated that he wished to pre-
serve the credit of the country. Now, it was precisely
with a view to the maintenance of public credit as
well as the character of that House, that he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) called upon them to
sustain the proposition of her Majesty's Government,
and to reject that of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
The words in the resolution certainly specified a limited
period, with reference to the duration of the tax pro•
posed; but he had stated on a former occasion, and he
now repeated, that, at the proper time, the Government
would propose that that limited term should be a period
of three years; so that he trusted that the House would,
in reference to the present proposal, clearly under-
stand that the question before them for decision was,
whether the present income-tax should now be voted for
a period of three years, or for a period of one year.—
(Hear, hear.) He had already stated that when they
(the Government) had to consider the financial proposals
for the year, they did consider themselves bound to
make, if possible, the proposed income for the year equal
to the proposed expenditure. They had proposed to do
that by a continuation of the existing income-tax for a
limited period, accompanied by a proposal to add an ad-
ditional two per cent, to it fur a period of two years,
thinking that, by the addition of that amount for two
years, they should be enabled, at the end of that term,
to part without difficulty with that increase in the tax.
On that point the House had, however, almost unani-
mously said that they could not agree to the proposal
made to them, and even the lion. Member for Montrose
admitted that it was on good grounds that they had
abandoned that part of their financial policy. Of
course it was for the Government to consider whether
it was advisable to propose some other tax to supply the
place of the portion they had abandoned; but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that
the increase in the expenditure was temporary, sad
therefore ought to be met by a temporary tax, and he
did not think that it would be advisable to add a per-
centage on the indirect taxation of the country—on the
assessed taxes, or on the window duties; and lie still re-
mained of opinion that the best course, and the one
that would have been likely to have, less than any other,
interfered with their trade and commerce, would have
been to'have submitted to an additional two per cent.
income-tax for a limited time. The first subject, how-
ever, to which, after the refusal of that proposition, they
had turned their attention was the consideration of the
state of the balances in the Exchequer. Now, he had
stated, on a former occasion, what were the balances in
the Exchequer for a term of years past, and that in
April nest the amount of those balances would be about
7,000,0001.; supposing, therefore, that they should be
reduced by 1.500,0001., they would still amount to
5,500,0001. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
seemed to think that it was an extraordinary thing not
to provide income within the year for the expenditure
for the eaMe year; in the budget of 1842, however,
there was announced a probable deficiency Of
I.3oo,oool—though the actual deficiency turned
out to be not more than 2,000,0001.—and by the means
of the income-tax proposed by the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) the income, in the course, not of
that year, but of two years, exceeded the expenditure.
But it was impossible to do this within a given period of
one year. He did believe, however, that—looking at
the probable increase in their income, and looking at
that reduction of expenditure which it was possible might
be effected in the course of two or three years—it was
very possible that the average income of the next three
years would equal the ave;age expenditure.—(Hear,
hear.) But this he would say, that if that House, hav-
ing refused the proposition offered with a view to make
the income equal the expenditure within the year,
should refuse also that which was proposed with the ob-
ject of doing it within the time for which the present tax
was asked of the House, then that House itself would
have taken the first step towards repudiation, and
towards the injury of the credit of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) Suffering as the country had done
under the infliction of a great calamity, and smarting,
as it had been, under severe commercial distress, he
was not surprised that it should have refused to sub-
mit to an additional impost, even for a time—though,
he confessed, he still thought the country was wrong in
such refusal—yet, he must say, that they (the House of
Commons) were bound to provide the existing revenue
for an adequate period, to make up for any deficiency
that existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite true that the
Members at the present moment holding seats in that
House might not be the same who had voted the income-
tax on two occasions already; but surely they all owed
something to the character of this House, and lie did
think that, independently of other considerations of
equal importance, that they could not look at the pre-
sent state of affairs around them, or consider the course
which a large majority of the House had on former
occasions adopted, without coming to the conclusion that
it would not be consistent on the part of that House to
refuse to agree to the present proposal.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman (who spoke throughout
amidst much noise on the part of the House)
then referred to the speech of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Zunwortb, on introducing a

the income-tax in 1842, to show that it heti ntot
been brought forward, to fled eileged, stdely
to meet a de:icit, but also to etieb'e 1 he
Government of the day to remeee other taxes which
pretsed upon the industry and commerce of the country.
If that was not the case with regard to its imposition in
1842, how was the case in 1845 ?—(Hear, hear.) In
that year there was no larger a deficit, but a surplus ;
and yet the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) came
down and proposed to the House the renewal of the
income-tax for a turther term of three years. Neither
had the House been deluded—but, on the contrary, fully
warned—as to the mode in which the tax ought to be
levied, and that there would be no distinction between
the schedules for those three years, at all events. Mr.
Roebuck, on the occasion of the renewal of the tax,
moved to omit professional incomes from the same ope-
ration of the tax as those from property, and fifty-five
gentlemen only supported his views ; whilst, on a sub-
sequent occasion, when the House divided on the main
question of the proposal of the tax, the majority against
the motion was no more than thirty.—(Hear, hear.)
Ile thought, then, that he was justified in his pre.
sent proposition. He would not argue now the
charge that this was to be a permanent sub-
stitution fur other taxation ; but what he did say
that Parliament was pledged to was this—to give all
opportunity for other sources of taxation to he con-
sidered, with a view to the equalisation of the income
and expenditure of the country, and for that purpose
Parliament was pledged to the inaintenence of this tax
for a limited time. He thought in had taken the
shortest possible term in which to accomplish that object,
and he did claim some character for consistency ex that
House, and he called upon them to continue this tax for
the time which it was proposed.—(llear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman then expressed his regret that
some Hon. Gentlemen should have altogether falsified
the principles on which this experiment had originally
been made—(Hear, hear)—and, referring to the state of
commercial matters, observed that he could not say that
he saw an early prospect of their revival, for, in addi-
tion to existing causes, the state of affairs abroad might
have some effect on the interests of commerce for a
time ; but that, he might be permitted to remark,
afiored a still stronger reason for the continuance of
this tax for three years longer rather than for one. The
Honourable Member for Montrose had remarked
that it was very desirable that all their taxes should
be proposed for one year, but he (Sir C. Wood)
very well remembered, in reference to their annual
debates upon the sugar duties, that the trade that was
interested therein had always said that nothing in the
world was so prejudicial to their interests as bringing
their case before Parliament every year.—(Bear, hear.)
He must say he always thought that they were right in
that opinion; and he was convinced that a proposal to
make all duties annual duties would be the greatest blow
that could be given to the trade and commerce of this
country.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to a general re-
vision of taxation, too, he must say, that to propose
that such revision should be undertaken at once appeared
to be impracticable. He could only say that he was as
anxious as any man could be to reduce expenditure when
such reduction could be safely effected; and the only
case in respect of which they (the Government) were
anxious to resist any reduction—at least any undue re-
duction—was that of those establishments which they
thought necessary for the protection and the honour of
the country. The Right Honourable Gentleman con-
cluded by expressing a hope that the reasons he had
ventured to state to the Manse would induce them to
assent to the proposal of the Government.
Mr. SPOONER would vote for the motion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose because of his anxiety to
uphold the honour and credit of the country, and
because he was opposed to the reduction of tho,c esta-
blishments which were necessary fur its protection. He
conceived that there was nothing so dangerous to both
as a tax which was not only unjust in its principle, end
unpopular in its provisions, but it was rendered still
more unpopular by the way in which those provisions
were carried out by the Commissioners in various aarM
of the country. He would also vote for the metion,
because after the division of Friday night it was clear
that the Government intended to press the tax upon the
House without any modification, and he tleeight the
sooner the industrious classes were released from its ine-
quality and injustice the better. He was of opinion, too,
that Ireland ought not to be excepted from it. He was
aware that other taxes were at the time proposed as
equivalents, but they had not proved to be equiett'ents.
Ho thought it unjust that the owner of property in Ire-
land, if resident abroad, should riot be subjeet to that tax.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
querhad observed that this ttax, was imposeil partly to make
up a deficiency, and partly to try a great ex',:erinient
which was greatly to benefit trade and commerce, but
which was not yet fully carried out, and, that, there.
fore, the tax ought to be continued. But had that expe-
riment been successful ? He maintained that it had not.
The industry of the country was completely broken
down, and the small capital of the small tradesman
destroyed. Those who were in point of fact the strength
of the nation—the middling classes—were paralysed.
That has been the experience of the past, and he warned
the House before it took suer a stop as that proposed by
her Majesty's Government. The House was nut aware
of the extent of the injury it would be inflicting. The
people of all classes were opposed to the measure, and
nothing could be so dangerous as to permit the neces-
sary expenditure of the nation to depend upon a plan
which was rejected and disapproved of in all directions,
and which was thoroughly revolting to the majority of
the people of the country. A spirit of justice should he
not only displayed but adopted, and if the Government
wished to make the tax in any degree well received, it
should not be for more than one year. If thy had wisily
made such a proposition as that, they would have dune
much more to support the credit of the country than by
the measure they now submitted. They had twice
granted an income-tax for three years, and upon both
occasions, hopes had been expressed, ptotnises had been
made, that before the termination of either of these
periods, the revenue of the country would be so eree tly
improved, that the further continuance of the impost
would be unnecessary. The measures recently pritteis(d
showed how those promises had been kept—how those
hopes had been realised. One of the causes assigned
for the continuing the tax was the bad harvest of last
year. The next would in all human probability be
better ; the Government could lose nothing by trying
for one year, but if the tax was imposed for three years,
it would be considered a permanent one, and would con-
sequently he much more objectionable. Ile was as
anxious as the Ilan. Member fir Montrose himself to
curtail the expenditure of the country, but he was also
desirous to sustain its credit, and he looked upon the
present measure as more calculated than any other to
shake that credit, and render the people discontented.
He believed the experiments of 1842 and 1845 were
wrong in principle. The real just principle upon
which taxation should be conducted, wee to confine it to
the importation of all foreign articles by foreigners.
Their free-trade policy had had the effect, even already,
of turning the balance of trade against them, and the failure
of the harvests aggravated the calamity. He, however,
went further back than the experiments of 1842 and 1345,
with respect to which, as well as our monetary and free-
trade systems, ho had the misfortune to differ very
widely with those for whose judgment and wisdom, upon
other subjects, he always entertained the deepest respect.
He considered our' present free-trade and mone-
tary systems the fundamental sources of a'most all the
evils by which this country was afflicted. Hew was i:
that during the war, when our commerce was cripplt d
by all the regulations which Bonapurte could impose,
we could raise 120,000,0001. with far less di:lL:laity than
we could now borrow so many thousands. We had no
free-trade system at that time, and when an incttme.
tax of 10 per cent. was proposed the answer now made
was'not then given—" that the poverty of the people
was so great they could not afford it." The Honour-
able Gentleman commented upon the various etattoes
passed from 1810 to 1844, regulating our monetary sys-
tem, and expressed his disapproval of the celebrated
Bank Act of the latter year. He was not for a paper
currency without a due limit, but he affirmed that the
point of convertibility which bad been adopted by the Act
of 1844 was an unjust one, end could never be main-
tained. That error (it was understood) was in a great
measure the cause of all the fluctuations between pros-
perity anti adversity which were recently witnessed in
this country, and those fluctuations would continue
until this subject was thoroughly grappled with, and all
the injustice removed. Considering the condition in
which the country was, he was unwilling to object to
the income-tax for one year; but if the Government
pressed it unmodified, and for three years, he should
think it his duty to offer the measure his most strenuous
opposition —(lean)
Captain TOWNSEND said, as that was the first time
he addressed the House he was not about to make a cur-
rency speech; but he would express a few sterling
words—( A laugh)—upon the subject under consideration.
He regretted extremely that the Goveroment had pro-
posed such a measure, for he always thought an income-
tax the most odious and inquisitorial of the taxes intro-
duced into this country. It was unequal and in every
respect objectionable; but when proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite it was received as a good and a
fair tax. In 1842 there were no meetings or demonstrA
tions against it. Then it was represented that it would
last only for three years. On its expiration iu 1845 it 1;
was renewed, and then there were neither meetings nor
any public expression of disgust or opposition. No gen-
tleman in or out of that House was more opposed to the
income-tax than he; but, as their constituet.cies had not
spoken out upon the subject, he thought they were
served quite right in being saddled with it.--(Laughter.)
And he for one should give the measure his sup-
port. He thought the country should suffer for its
stupidity, and he hoped they would.—(Laughter.)
Objections had been m.ajle to the improvement of our
national defences, and also to what had been termed
" the warlike speech" of the Noble Lord (J. Russell) ;
but he quite disagreed with the Hon. Gentlemen who
had taken those objections, for a more pacific speech, or
one expressive of more kind and friendly feelings to-
wards the French people, could not have been delivered.
Aa to our national defences, our standieg army was not
more than was required. As brig as we havneoloides
we must hold them in a great measure by military occu-
pation. It could not be expected that we were to have
no disturbances at home requiring the aid of the military.
Free trade would disappoint many weo expec:ed it
would operate as a panacea for all evils. Whelk there
were so many demagogues, as in Irclan I, screwing the
last penny out of the poorest of the mast miserable
and destitute people, it was not to be sill posed that
we do not need a strong military Puree always
prepared for any emergency.—(hear,hear.) He
did not suppose for a moment that the French would
attempt anything so rash as an invasion of this country,
it was possible, and we should he
but, at the same time,
ready to receive them. The expanses of our naval and
military establishments were objected to; but what, he
would ask, was to he done in case of war? He ‘uppas d
the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Br:ght) weeld
recommend that the guns fit for present use should be
removed, and sham ones, or Takers, placed in their

a
sved.—(Lroi sD
ghter.) T!te Gallant Captain then read
extract from a spyeeh of Mr. Cobden, who cola:matte"
with much scverity on the idleness and dernoraliesol
on board our m,ri -or- war, and as en instance of the former.
stated, " that they we re on certain occasions mentioned
afraid to go to sea because it was rough." That cos'
tinned Captain TownAhend) was the greatest 41.1(;8tic6
—the most unwarrantable libel upon the naval set.
vice of this country that any man could have bees
guilty of.—(Hear, hear.) He was sorry the Hondae•
ably Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), who represented thl
opinions of, anti had such influence over so sal
of his fellow•countrymen, so'far committed himself'
but he hoped that Honourable Gentleman had alresui
discovered his error, and that he would have the coral?s
decency to correct it.---(Laughter.) The fact was pet
had represented not what he had himself seen, but
this
,
bud been told him by en American Consul. '—
Honourable Giutleman had beers on board any of our
mat-of-war, he would have soon discovered the order
and perfect discipline observed. Our gunnery eri1....11n
so much improved, that if the Honourable Geots74,l
opposite (Mr. Muntz, who was seated on the OpPotin„-i
b‘ir.ches with a large stick in his hand, put up his 617:f"
as a mark, he (Captain Townshend) would bet his 16
it would be shot down before the Honourable Ges„,,r.
man had time to shave himself.—(Laughter.)
Memb.ir reiterated his disapproval of the raer
sure, but said he felt it his duty to support the Goiern
went, as the several constituencies throughout this
"

country hsd not cried out against the measure: ~
Mr. G. J. TURNER entertained no objection nay
ever to the general proposition of an income-tax, elluo
it was imposed justL, and equitably, it would have, to
most cordial and hearty support. It was nature'
expect that the constituencies would judge of the"
Members by the votes they gave. He, therefore, self;
ported the general proposition for an inconse.tax.
doubt the estimates were large, but he thought o_7
larger than the exigencies of the country require'
Should any mischance befal, the responsibility eel;
on the Government ; and they must be supposed
possess
the best information us to what was likely
occur. He was no advocate for reposing a blind eenii
fidence in any Minister ; but every Member shell.
consider what circumstances might exist, unkso.7
to himself, hut present to the consideration of Nl',
nisters, which might require higher estimates thse
he thought necessary. If he was convinced 001,,
were none such, the straightforward course vocal
be to propose a vote of want of confidence in Minister,,
The arguments in support of the amendment appeared
to him most defective. One Hon. Gentleman recent'
mended teat we should disarm; but where was the le'
nividual, even the greatest tax-payer in the countrlo
who would like to see this nation compelled to sue Of
mercy at the foot of a foreign power ? He did 110'
think the army estimates at all too large, looking at the
increased facilities of steam transit which now existed.;
still lie was determined not to support Ministers on this
occasion, on the ground of the injustice of the income'
tax as at present existing. All income was of thre_°
kinds—from realised property, from trades, and
professions. The first was unconnected with any labouu
whatever ; the second arose from capital and labour
combined ; the last was wholly derived from labour'
Could that be a just principle of taxation which Olr.eo
id
the same burden on labour, and on labour and cnrto
combined, as on that income which had no conceal°
with labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He would sot el;
crept the two latter classes from all burden
v
whatever ; but it was most unjust to subject' thee"
the same tax as the income derived from realised P
perty. A man who had 10,0001. a year from the Ist°
source paid the tax without touching his actual Pr:
;
petty while, in the other cases, it was so much
ducted from the yearly earnings of the tradesman or pre
fessional man, who was thus compelled to labour tell
days in every year solely to pay the tax, without de'
riving any benefit to himself. The Right Hon. Genii;
man below him (Mr. Goulburn) had said there was
compensation for this inequality in the ether charges
which realised property was subject. But it could „
be contended that one injustice should sanction snaps'
—that two wrongs made a right. Then, it had bell
said that a breach of faith towards the public creditor
would be committed by taxing the fundholders in .
higher rate than_ other individuals. Still there r
insined the injustice of taxing labour in the same ratio
as capital and realised property. The effect of Weil-
come-tex on the fundholder, or a holder of long ant
ties, for instance, was in fact a tax upon his capital whiff
he was yearly receiving back, and the case was the esale
with the holder of leasehold or copyhold property'
(Hear, hear.) In all these cases the net en.
nual value of the income ought to be Wet.
turned, according to the table' of the insurance office!
and why might not the same be done with the incomei
from professions and trade ? The Chancellor 7.,
the Exchequer might allege that this would materielq
reduce the revenue. Be it so: but why should not th°
possessors of an assured income be taxed at a high.er
rate—why should not there be a graduation of the
come-tax? Mr. Pitt had introduced tbe principle °A
gradation; and the only objection that had been rale"
to it was that of an eminent writer—that, if carried to
an extreme, it might exhaust the income which it was
meant to tax. This was by no means a necessary cow
sequence; the gradation might be so arranged as not to
incur any such danger. Be considered that Ministers
had exercised a wise discretion in continuing the ely
emption to Ireland. The burden which that coastal
was sustaining from the new poor-law was such as I,°
require it; it had created a crisis in the sister islarle'
A similar crisis had overtaken the trade of this comsat.
and it was, therefore, entitled to the same cone
siduration. Ile should give his vote on this occasion*
alter the most mature deliberation, in favour of tbe
amendment, believing that if the tax were only granted
for one year Ministers would be afforded an oppoetu-
nity of rendering it less obnoxious and unjust.—(Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY said the speech of the Hon. Gentle:well
who had just sat down would have been much more AP'
propriate on Friday last. The tax might be unequal ;
he admitteti it was so; but the question now was whether
it should be imposed for one year or three. Let the
House well consider what would be the effect of the
amendment. They had been informed that the expel'
diture of the financial year, commencing next month,
would be about 54.596,5001. ; and the income about
51,250,000/. ; making certain deduction,, the net daft'
cieney would probably amount to two millions. Should.
then, the income-tax, which produced between five and
six millions, be disnontinued at the end of one year, a
deficiency would arise in 1849 of between seven and eight
millions. Without entering into the question of the
estimates which had been referred to Committees, he
might observe that it was desirable that the discussion
on the estimates should always precede the discussion
of the ways and means. The departure from this rule
in the present instance had led to much inconvenience.
Several Hon. Members had, on Friday evening, intro-
duced subjects entirely foreign to the question before
the House. Ho would ask, was there any probability
that the estimates could be so far reduced as to enable
them to dispense with the income-tax at the end'of the
year ?
Mr. HUME—Why not go back to the expenditure of
1832?—(Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY observed there were many items Of
expenditure which could not possibly be reduced to that
scale; nor did he think a deficiency of upwards of seven
miLions could be avoided, in the event of the income-tax
terminating at the end of the year. Such being the case.
the House would not be justified in keeping up the agi-
tation anti excitement which would arise from the tau
being only voted for one year. But how did the Hon.
Member for ;Monti ose reckon on making up the defi-
ciency? The Howe would never consent to reimpose
the taxes on provisions, in lieu of which the income'
tax had been atlop ed. Was it proposed to call in aid
so'ne great fiscal reform, which might carry the On'
ciple of direct taxation still further ? He much
doubted whether any Government would be bold enough
to extend that principle further at present. The
events of the last fortnight had shown that that kys-
tom ('f taxation was not one that ought to be much
relied on in times of peace ; and he doubted whether
it could prudently be carried further at present. Direct
taxation necessarily involved the inquisitorial visits of
the tax collector, which were viewed with such justifi-
able repugnance that he thought it would be impossible
to extend the system. In the ease of indirect taxation
a man might economise by abstaining from taxed arti-
cles; but there was no means, of evading the income-
tax. While indirect taxation limited enjoyment, direct
taxation prevented economy and saving; a worse evil
could not be inflicted on the nation. The surplus in-
come of individuals was in reality the wealth of the na-
tion; it had given rise to all our great public works; and
to diminish the amount of this fund was to strike at the
root of national welfare and progress. As the deficiency
from the repeal of the income• tax could not be made
good, either by decreasing the expenditure, by re-im-
posing indirect taxes, or by extending direct taxation,
he thought it would be most unwise and unfair to create
expectations which could not be realised, and to shake
the faith of the public in the continuance of the present
system. Tills would be neither honest or manly. He.
therefore, felt compelled to vote for this tax, and he
could not vote for it for a single year only. If it were
voted for three years, it would give time for the re-
sources of the country to recruit themselves. In the
meantime, many sources of expenditure would terminate
by the completion of the dockyards and other public
works. Though sensible of the high honour which was
due to the Hon. Member for Montrose, for his efforts is
the cause of economy, he could not support him in his
present proposal.
Mr. G. ROBINSON was convinced that there was
every disposition out. of doors to support the national
credit, and to give Ministers the means of supplying the
exigencies of the State. All that he desired was that
the taxation should be equal—in the words of Adam
Smith, " that those who lived under the protection of the
State should pay for that protection in proportion to the
means which they enjoyed."—(Hear, hear.) The in'
come-tax, it was admitted, was likely to be a permanent
burthai ; and, therefore, there did not now exist the same
excuse for its inequality as might have been urged when
it was first imposed by the Right 11011. Baronet the
Member for Tarnworth. He was in favour of limiting
the income-tax to a year, because he was desirous of
forcing the Government to bring forward some plan for
the revision of their anomalous system of taxation. Be
believed that a large portion of their revenue had been
unnecessarily thrown away by the measures of the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir li. Peel) Ile would implore
of the Government to look manfully at the financial
position of the country.. He hoped that they would
reduce the establishments of the nation to the lowest
point without injury to the public interests. He begged
of them to equalise the burdens f the country as much
tl3 possible.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he would not go into
the question respecting the renewal of the income-tax,
even those who on principle most objected to
such a tax admitted that in the present circumstances of
t e country it was desirable that it should be renewed.
He had opposed the income-tax on a former oeeesie.e,
and the experieuoi of lite yeas bald Rat =le WI

T

enamoured of it. He thought it was a tax that should
be reserved for a time of war. The House of Commons,
however, assented to it, and the country accepted it with
a greater acquiescence than he could have expected, in
order to give the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel)
an opportunity of proceeding with his commercial
reforms. If that course was found necessary in 1545, it
was much more so at the present period. It had been
said that the reduction of duties effected by the Right
Hon. Baronet had proved a failure. Hi, (Mr. Labou-
chere's) conviction was of a different kind, and he
firmly believed that if the springs of industry had not
been relaxed by the measures alluded to, the country
would now be a worse position than it was.
--(Hear, hear.) He thought the country had reason to
rejoice, that in consequence of them, British commerce
bad been enabled to supply the unfortunate calamities
which a deficiency of food bad brought upon it. He should
look upon it as a most unfortunate circumstance if the
House were to agree to the motion of his Hon. Friend
and limit the income-tax to a year. It would be 'eel
false economy and false policy, to take any step which
should have the effect of giving a shock to the credit of
the country. And he could not disguise hie apprehen
sion that the House, in assenting to the proposition 0;
his Hon. Friend, would give a great blow to commerce
and to the credit of the country both at home and abroad.
He hoped that peace won!el be preserved both at hone-
and abroad, but looking to the circumstances of the
times, it was most desirable, whatever Minister the House
Might choose to have, that the credit of the country-
should be sustained, and that union should exist amongst
all parties upon this point. Let them cut down all unne-
cessary expenses, but let the honour, character and
credit of the country be upheld at all events.—(Hear.)
It was desirable that their system of taxation should be
revised; but let them nut, under present circumstances.
throw things into confusion in the hope that something
might come from it. Such conduct would be an unpar-
donable error in the House. The Hon. Gentleman had
spoken of the prostrate position and fallen condition o;
the country. It was true they were suffering from the
effects of a great calamity; but he denied that there was
anything in the state of the country to inspire them with
despondency.—(Hear.) lie believed it only required
time, peace at home and abroad, union and politic,'
tranquillity, to make this country spring forward in the
race of prosperity ; and all calamities would pass
away like clouds. Let them not judge of their pro-
gress in prosperity by a single year, but let them judge
of it by periods of twenty years. He would read for
the House a comparative statement which had been
drawn up by officials in the Board of Trade, of the
Wealth of the country as shown by the income-tax in
1815, and as shown by the returns of 1842. The result
would show how greatly the country increased in pros-
perity during the interval; and it should be recollected
at the same time that in the year 1815, all incomes above
50/ a year were taken into calculation with a depre-
ciated currency, whilst in 1842 all incomes under 1501.
Were exempted, with an appreciated currency. Under
schedule A, including real property, the amount rated to
the income-tax for 1814 15 was 60,000,0001.; in 1842 3
it was 94,000,000/. Under schedule B, including
the occupiers of land. &c., the return for 181415
was 38,000;0001.; in 1842-3, it was 43,000,0001. Under
schedule C, including the public funds, the return for
181445 was 31,000,000/ ; in 1842 it was 27,000,0001.
Under schedule D. including trades and professions, the
return for 1814-15 was 35,886,000/4 in 1842 3, it
was 64,344,0001. In schedule E, including sala-
ries, the amount, in 1842 43, was considerably
diminished—a fact to ehieli he begged to direct the
attention of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.
the amount rated under the head of salaries to tee
income-tax, for 1814-15, was 13,642,000/.; in 1842 3 it
was 10,195,0001. The result of the whole was, that in 1815
the amount rated to the incemeetax was 179 000,0001.; in
1842 it was 240.000,000/. It was impossible to give a
more striking and satisfactery proof of the steady in-
crease of the wealth and prosperity of the country.—
(Hear.) Since 1815 taxes to the amount of 53 milions
had been reduced, and others to the amount of
13,782,0001. had been imposed, leaving a balance of
more than 39,770,000/. If they were not enabled to
make the revenue cover the expenses of the year, they
were resolved that upon an average of years there
should be a probable expectation that the income vvou'd
equal the expenditure. No man could predict with cer-
tainty with respect to future expenditure and income.
All he could sty was, that the Government in submit-
ting their financial proposition to the House, had asked
for as little taxation as was consistent with the efficieecy
of the public service of the country, and he hoped the
House would not disturb the credit of the country by
assenting to the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. OSBORNE said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, had said but little in support of
the income-tax, but that might be expected, when it was
known that the Right Hon. Gentleman had said on a
former occasion that " he never met with a statesman or
any man experienced in political affairs, who did not
declare that the imposition of such a tax was most ob-
jectionable, and above all to be avoided•ia time of peace,
and that before having recourse to such a scheme of
taxation he must exhaust every other."—(Hear, hear.)
Why had not the Right Hun. Gentleman exhausted every
other scheme of taxation, and why did he not support
the motion of the lion. Member for Cockermouth (Mr.
Elorsman)? But the Right Hon. Gentleman supported
the motion brought forward by the lion. Member for
Liskeard, now a membsr of the Government, which had
somewhat a similar object in view.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he did not vote for it.
Mr. OSBORNE—The Right Hon. Gentleman did ne t
Tote for it, but be del net vote against it. Ile was of
Opinion that the tax ought to be rendered more equal,
and though they might not be able to arrive at mathe-
matical accuracy, that was no reason why they should
not endeavour to render it more palateable to the petiple,
The Right Hon. Gentle man the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer quoted the authority of Mr. Pitt, but itsshonld
be recollected that when Mr. Pitt imposed the income-
tax the country was engaged in a war fur her existence.
When the renewal of this tax was proposed by tee Right
Hon. Baronet, the Noble Lord (Lora J. Russell) made
the following motion:—" That, considering the various
means of supplying the present deficiency, it is the opi-
nion of the House that tee renewal of a tax inquisitorial
in its character, unequal in its pressure, and hitherto
considered exclusively as the financial reserve of the
nation in time of war, is not called for by the public ne-
cessities, and is not, therefore, advisable."—(Hear.) He
did not think that there was any greater necessity for
this tax now than when the Noble Lord made this motion,
In 1816 the House of Commous refused an income-tax
by a majority of 37, and the public credit was not
shaken, nor did Ministers resign in consequence. But
in 1842 the Right Hon. Baronet smuggled the income-
tax through the House, and promised that the amount of
the tax would be made up by the saving which would
result from the commercial measures which he proposed.
He (Mr. Osborne) never yet saw the person who said
that he effected any such saving.—(Hear.) He'denied that
he had a right to look to the exigencies of the State
alone in imposing taxes; they moust also look to the
exigencies and wants of the people, and he believed
there never was a time when the people were less able to
bear a tax, not of five per cunt., but of three per cent.--
(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Coventry (Mr. Ellice) said that the income-tax did not
affect the poor. He denied that. It was well known
that it induced all persons to curtail their expenses. The
poorer classes were beginning to comprehend that, and
they were therefore determined to oppose it. The
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War,
in 1842, and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir. R. Peel), in
1833, admitted this. He thought the whole question
of taxation should be referred to a Committee,
instead of the current expenditure, which was a dan-
gerous precedent. He thought the time was come when
the people of this country would insist on cheap
government, and would not tolerate the system of ne-
potism by which the members of the aristocracy were
provided for in their public offices. In 1842 the Noble
Lord said he saw no reason why a legacy duty should
not be imposed on real property in preference to the in-
come-tax. But now not one Member of of the Govern-

bent said a word on this subject. He was sorry the
nonottrable Member for Manchester had withdrawn his

motion on this subject, beeause, if there was any time
!pore appropriate for bringing it forward than another,
it was the present.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Laird in
1842 also recommended a tax on four-wheeled car-
riages and horses, from all wbich he calculated a revenue
of 2,500,000/. He did not know bow the Noble Lord

Could come• down to propose a tax which he had so
much denounced in 1842. It was stated that the Irish
Members would vote for the imposition of this tax. He
should be surprised if they were so blind to their own
interests and to the consequence of their votes if
they gave them in favour of the tax.—(oh.) The
Hon. Gentleman who cried "Oh" showed that he had
already made up his mind to vote for it. But he
begged to remind him and other Irish Members that the
great loader of the Irish people, who was now no more,
exlpressed himself strongly against this tax. lie said,
In proposing the income• tax, you are proposing what
15 unjust to the people of England, and, therefore, I will
give such a proposition all the opposition in my power."
Another authority of no less weight, still living, and a
Member of the Government, said, "That of all imposi-
tions which a perverse ingenuity could devise the in•
come-tax was the worst—a tax most repugnant to the
interests, abhorrent to the religious sentiments, and re-
volting to the moral sense of the people of England.—
(Laughter, and cries of " Name.") It was no less a
Person than the distinguished Member for Dungarvan
who used these words.—(llear, hear.) He (Mr. Os-
borne) fully participated in the sentiments of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and if the Members from Ireland sup-
ported the infliction and perpetuation of this manifest
and revolting injustice on their English brethren, he
believed the time had arrived when it should also be ime
posed on the sister kingdom.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL—I think, sir, that it is important in
considering the question, whether the income-tax shall
now be continued for three years, that we should not
exclude altogether from our consideration the circum-
stances under which that tax was imposed in 1842, and
renewed in the year 1845 ; and I feel•it incumbent upon
me, after the reflections which have been cast upon the
tax itself, and upon the moives and conduct of those by
whom it was imposed, to vindisate from the aspersions
of opponents the Government by which this tax was
Proposed to Parliament, ens! the House of Commons
:which, by immense inejorities, consented to its original
Imposition.—(Hear.) If, Sir, they believe all they have
heard, this House of Commons, or rather those 'Mem-
bers of it who had no place in the last Parliament, can-
not but have formed a strange opinion of the conduct of
their predecessors, and must be filed with surprise and
astonishment that it was possible for any Minister to
have persuaded a Legislature to consent to the impost
Lion of the tax we are discussing. The Hon. Member
who spoke last says tie. tax was " smuggled " through
Parliament. Smuggled through Parliament ! Smuggle
an income-tax imposing a burden of five millions on
the pee2pla I Smuggled through Parliament !—lf you
ri4116 Souse of Commons—are ashamed of the vote by

which this tix was pasted, rescind it ! If new events
have occurred convincing you that the policy was wrorg
alter the policy ; it must always be wise to accept the
guidance of experience ; it must always be nb,urd ta
maintain a system which occurrences proves unsound.
But it is a gross reflection upon the late House of Corn-
mons to insinuate, as has been done this night., that this
measure was "smuggled" through Parliament, and it is
an veiledly injurious imputation upon those who imposed
the tax to say that they concealed the real motives of
their conduct !—(llear.) By overwhelming majorities
the tax was assented to. An Honourable Merneer (the
Member for Finshury) told us the other eight that he
was "fascinated " int' supporting it. —(A laugh.) A
Representative of a large and important constituency,
makes the humiliating avowal that he allowed a tax im-
posing a burden of five millions upon the people of Ecg-
land to pass this House, not because of his deliberate
conviction of its justice and propriety, but because he was
" fascinated" into supporting it.— ( Laughter.) Another
Hon. Member says it was " smuggled " through the
House. Why did you permit it ? Can it be pessible
hat 'Members of large constituencies allowed so im
portant a measure to pass in such a mariner ? Sir, on
their behalf, I repel the imputation. I conceive that
there never was an imputation more ill founded. I be-
lieve that there were great and important considerations
of financial and commercial policy which induced you to
Assent to this tax, in place of increasing the indirect
taxation of the country. Let me review what occurred.
I was appointed to office in 1841. I", in what I am about
to say, I appear to draw any invidious contrast between
the late and the present Government, let me at once
disclaim any intention of so doing.—(firer, hear.) One
of my motives for giving my support to this measure is,
because of the great difficulties of the position in which
the Government are placed. That is one of ray motives
for supporting the measure. But, in vindication of the
late House of Commons, I must state what is the truth. I
will endeavour to make that statement from memory, with-
out troubling the House by referring to statistics. In 1841
the Government with which I was connected succeeded
to power. There was a deficit in the revenue. It was
not an occasional and casual deficit. In 1838, if I re-
collect rightly, there had been a deficiency of 1,500,0001.
In 1839 there was a deficiency of half a million. In
1840 a further deficiency of 1,500,0001. In 1841 the
deficiency amounted to no less than 2,400,000/. My
estimate in 1842 was, that if no great effort were made,
and if the estimates were to be continued at the same
rate until 1843, my estimate was that we should have in
chat year a further deficiency of 2,600,0001. On the sth
of April in that year, if ray calculations were correct,
we should have had an accumulation of deficit amounting
to no less than ten millions sterling money ! That was
the financial condition of the country ! What had taken
place ? The House of Commons, when they assented
to a fiscal alteration, which could not be resisted except
on fiscal considerations—the House of Commons, when
they assented to an alteration of the Post-office duties, pro-
Cessed a fixed determination to support the public credit.
They declared that there should be no deficiency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fulfilment of that
pledge, had proposed to Parliament an addition of 5
per cent. upon the Customs and Excise duties, and had
proposed that 10 per cent. should be added to the
issessed taxes. What had been the result of these addi-
tions to the general taxation? If I recollect rightly, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the 5 per
cent. added to the Customs and Excise duties would pro-
duce about 1,900,0001. The actual income was, on the
most favourable calculation, not more than 700,000/.
Consequently there was a deficiency, comparing the esti-
:nate with the proceeds, of not less than 1,300,000/. But
what had taken place as regarded the addition to the
assessed taxes? The estimate was, that 262,0001. would
be the produce of the 10 per cent. additional taxation
epon this branch; but the actual produce was 300,0001.
There consequently was evidence that indirect taxation
had reached its limit, whilst direct taxation could hear a
further impost. I ask, then, was it the more wise in 1842
to resort to direct taxation to supply our deficiencies, or
to seek for a renewal of indirect taxes, such as the reim-
position of the duties upon salt and leather, and other
Articles of general consumption? On that financial ground
—guided by that great financial consideration—the House
took the view that the income- tax was advisable. That
tax was not " smuggled " through the House. It was
assented to after long debates, atter strenuous opposition,
upon the firm conviction that indirect taxation offered
no opportunities of supplying the deficiency equal to the
opportunity resulting from the imposition of that tax.—
(Loud cheers.) But I have said that there were also
commercial considerations which swayed the House.
What was the commercial position of the country ?
There existed a complete prohibition on the importation
of those animals which formed part of the means of
human subsistence. Not a cow, not a sheep, not a bul-
lock could be admitted! But this was not all. On bacon
there was a duty or 1/. Bs. per cwt.; on hams, 1/. Bs. per
cwt.; on rice, a duty of 7s. a quarter; on salted pork, a
duty of 12s. a barrel; on salted beef the same; nay, there
was even a duty of 2s. a cwt. on potatoes, and well I
remember that when I proposed to reduce that duty
there were the greatest remonstrances from the growers
of the root, and the loudest prophecies of total ruin to
all the districts in which it was cultivated!—(Hear,
and cheers.) But, to go beyond this, what was the
state of the corn-law at that time? If the price of
wheat was 675. 11d. a quarter, a duty was imposed of
183. Bd.; if the price was 635. 11d., the duty was
1/. 3s. 81; if it was 625. 11d., there was a duty of
11. 4s. lid. I greatly modified all these duties. I proposed
also to remove all prohibitions upon the admission of
other classes of articles, and to permit their importation
et certain specified rates. I proposed to admit all raw
materials at rates of duty not exceeding five per cent.;
to admit all goods partially manufactured at rates not
exceeding twelve per cent.; and all goods wholly maim •
lectured I proposed to admit at rates not exceeding
twenty per cent. Those propesitiens were acceded to
after repeated discussions. To supply the deficiency
thus crested in the revenue, I proposed an income-tax
to last until 1845. In that year it would have expired
in the ordinary coarse of things. But, looking now at
the evsnts of that year I beg to recal to the recollection of
the llouse what was the statement I then made. I told
the House that in that year there would be a surplus
revenue amounting to five millions. I stated that it' they
allowed the income-tax to expire there would be in 1846
a surplus of 2,600,000/. I stated at the same time that
in the opinion of her Majesty's Government it was
advisable to add greatly to our naval estimates. The
progress of steam navigation—the impossibility of re-
pairing our steam-vessels in the Channel—the unfitnesi
of our ports for steam navigation—rend: red it in our
opinion advisable to lay the foundation of those works
which have since been carried on. We thought
it also advisable to add to the number of our men in the
navy. I stated that to the House before I asked them
to renew the income•tax. I told them that it was open
to them either to abandon the income-tax or to retain it,
dispensing with duties upon other articles. I said, it
you retain the tax you will have a surplus of 3,600,0001. I
asked, in what mummer will you apply that surplus ? I
entreated the House seriously to consider whether or no
they were prepared to repeal the income-tax, or, retain-
ing that tax, to repeal the excise dimes on glass, &c ,
and to make an alteration of the sugar duties. So far
from talstrig the House by surprise those propositions
were fully submitted to their consideration. The Howe
affirmed the increase of the estimates ; they affirmed
the renewal of the income-tax ; they affirmed the re-
peal of taxes which involved a gross loss of two mil-
lions to the revenue ; a loss of 600,000/. on glass, of
680,0001. on cotton, of 300,000/. upon the auction duty,
together with other items, making a total less to the
revenue, which it was impossible to recover by any indi-
rect taxation of the same sort, to the extent of not less
than two millions at the least. It was with a full cognisance
of all these facts that the House of Commons consented
to the scheme. Now, it has been said that I concealed
the real objects with which I made those propositions.
—(Hear,- hear.) It has been said, that addressing
myself subsequently to a body of merchants in a distant
town, the subjects of another country, I made a decla-
ration at variance with my then expressed opinions.—
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Why, I utterly
deny it.---(Ministerial cheers.) Why, I have seen in
the newspapers a letter purporting to be written by me,
which, in the first place, appeared to have been a
German translation of what I did write, and then an
English re-translation of the G erman edition.--(Laughter
and cheers.) lam little desirous to repel these attacks;
I care little about them; but here is the letter I really
did write, which is that I apprehend by which I am
bound. "The property-tax was intended"—that is not
the commencement of the letter, but I suppose I need
not read what does not refer to the subject. I re-
ceived an address from these gentlemen, and I wrote to
thank them for it. After expressing my thanks, I pro-
ceeded—

" The property-tax was intended not merely to supply
a deficit in the revenue as compared with the public ex-
penditure, but to lay the foundation of juster principles
Of taxation, to afford means for repealing duties on the
raw materials of important manufactures, for exempting
useful branches of domestic industry from vexatious re-
gulations of excise, and for remitting taxation from
several tirades imported from abroad which are essential
to the comfort and enjoyment of the industrious classes
of the country."
That was what I wrote—(hear, hear); and I beg to ask
if that was not in direct coincidence with all I had ever
declared, and if I was not fully justified in saying that
my object was to " lay the foundation of juster principles
of taxation ?"—(Cheers.) There were 1,200 articles of
consumption subject to duties which led to restrictions
and regulations much more onerous even than the taxes
themselves. On 700 of those articles the duties were re-
duced, and on 500 they were entirely repealed. Was
not that the foundation of a great commercial change ?
If you say to me, " You did not use words to that effect
in this house,"l reply that the very words of the letter
are identical with words which I used in debate. On the
23d of March, 1842, an intimation having been thrown
out that the Government were not in earnest in proposing
the chat;ge, and that I had not asserted or implied that
the Government staked their exis'ence upon the success
of their measures—en the 23d of March, 1842, I used
the following v•ords in debate :—" I propose this as a
measure which ievolves the fate of the Government. To
have made such a declaration appears to me scarcely
necessary. Ido propose it—l speak not of minor de.
tads, but of :the measure itself—as the basis of the
financial and commercial policy of this country—
I.oud cries of " Hear, hear.") Well, there is a dif-
ference certainly between " basis " and " foundation." I
leave you to make the most of it—
"—and as a measure which I never could have contented
to propose if I did not manifest my conviction of its
necessity by risking my fate as a Minister on it. The
snore I consider the subject the more deeply am I con-
vinced that this measure, and the measures which ac-
company it, are necessary for the welfare of the country."
Those are the exact expressions which I used in 1842.
I did then certainly express a strong doubt if it would
not be better to continue the tax for five years rather
than for three, hut I expressed a sanguine hope that at
the end of five years it would be possible to repeal it.
And when 1845 °Arne my anticipations were realised, for