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

er E SUN,

7.5

I for Nottingham told the House that some other mode
of taxation must be resorted to. Now, although in 1842
he had been of opinion that it would be better to raise
additional revenue by new duties, yet, in answer to
such a proposal at the present time, he must say that he.
was not prepared to reimpose or to increase duties, the
remission of which had tended so much to the comlort
and enjoyment of the poorer classes. Ile did not think
it would be a wise step for the Government to propose
to raise five millions by increased excise duties. But
then it was said—and to that effect the present props-
sition tended—" take the amount you require, but raise
it by direct taxation only in a more equitable mode than
by your present income-tax." Now, he must say that
the presumption existed against the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth, that the tax in its
present proportion was first settled by Mr.
.Pitt, who
whatever might be the difference between himself and
that statesman in respect to his foreign, policy, w as,
in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, one of the greatest
financial statesmen that had ever existed. Mr. Pitt
showed, by reasonings of great cogency, why there
income
derived to be no distinctions made between
derived from diflerent sources. In 1842—as my lion.
Friend the Member for Cockermouth has alluded to me,
I may mention it—l urged the arguments which
have been quoted against the tax; but I stated at the
same time that the Right Hon. Boronet's reasons were
conclusive, and ought of themselves to induce the House
to accept the tax. I admit that in 1845 I was of opinion
that the tax might be modified—(Hear, hear)—but since
then, the more I have considered the subject—and I can
assure the Hon. Member for Cockermouth that it is not
only since Monday last that my Right lion. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered it—but the
more I have considered the subject. either by myself or
in communion with my colleagues, the more am lim
pressed with the impossibility of making it in any degree
wore fair and equal by any modification. I will not
weary the House by going into details on the subject.
The Right Hon. Member fur the University of Cam
bridge showed, by arguments which have not been an-
swered, that no such equality can be established.—(Hear,
hear.) But let me state the principle on which the
tax is founded, and why I think you would be defeated
in any attempt to make it more equal. The state im-
poses taxes on the ground that all classes are equally
hound to bear its burthens. Suppose two persons,
each with an income of 5001. a year: but one says, I
am peculiarly circumstanced—mine is a precarious
income. The state says, "We do not inquire into
your circumstances, we only aunt to know what is
your present income, and we take a certain portion
for the purposes of the public." Suppose you were to
go on another plan, and take Bd. in the pound from the
person holding land, and only 6d. and 4d. from each of
the two other classes, the person deriving his income
from Schedule A will fairly say, " You have not treated
ins justly, you have added to my taxes, but you have
done so on a mistaken supposition, because I have only
a life interest."—(Hear, hear.) In addition to this some
landholders might say, " My income does not go to my
daughters ; it is strictly entailed ; and for younger
children I have nothing to look to but my savings."
In the same way, the argument might be carried to
much stronger cases, such as jointures. The small
landowner might urge that it was unfair to tax him at
Bd. in the pound, while his neighbour, the wealthy mer
chant or manufacturer paid only 6d. This instance
was, in his opinion, a sufficient answer as to the
inequality of the tax. You must, then, be contented
with one of two things—either the injustice remains,
or you must set about investigating what is the
exact value of every man's income. I say, far
better is it to take the tax as it at present stands,
than by a'tempting to render it more equal to fall into
greater difficulty. Take the proposition how before es.
Suppose we charge property in land Bd., I think it
would then be our duty to take into consideration all
those questions respecting taxation, in which it is urged
that the State burdens press unfairly on the land.
There is the expense of conveyance, with the 12k per
cent. charged for stamps. If you raise their income-tax
to Bd., 3ou must consider all those charges to which I
have alluded.—(Hear, hear.) I come now to the obser-
vation of my Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose as
to the general inequality of the taxes. He says there is
hardly a tax which is not unjust; out he is willing to
give all those taxes for a single year, if Government
will be prepared to do away with all the inequalities by
the commencement of next year.—(A laugh.) Tie
llon. Gentleman seems to think he is doing something
very handsome, and reminds me, in his pro.nised reward,
of :the annual prizes given by the Privy Council to the
village schools. But however tempting, the Government
cannot accept his liberal offer. The revision of taxes
may be most desirable; that is a position which nobody
will deny. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth carried it to a considerable extent, and made
many improvements in taxation; but yet there is the
excise and the stumps, in which there is great room for
improvements. But the task is not one for a year.
Mr. HUME—There would be no difficulty about it.
Lord J. RUSSELL—As for taking these taxes for
one year, I will not consent to it.—(Hear.) Whenever
we are able, by careful review, to make propositions the
effect of which will be to make taxes press less heavily
ou industry, I can assure my Hon. Friend that I will
most happily avail myself of the opportunity ; but I
do think that no Government in the present state of af-
fairs ought to accept a tax for a single year, and under
such a promise, because I think that if they did so
they would be endangering the credit of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) I repeat that my Right Hon. Friend
the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never lost sight
sight of this subject of taxation ; but this I must say,
that the past year has been a jour its which the most
extraordit ury etbeits were sequin d to meet the emer-
gency arising from scarcity of food ; and I must
add, that I am not prepared new or in a
week's time to propose any scheme of taxa
tion better thee that which 1 now propose.—
(Hear.) I, therefore, with confidence, knowing what the
temper of the House was on former occasions, ask
this House to renew the income-tax, as it had been pro-
posed by others in former times. I ask it for a period
of three years—the same period for which it has twice
before been granted. I ask it not for the purpose of
making new armaments or of adding greatly to our
forces by sea and land. I ask it for the purpose of
maintaining those forces we have, and of supporting the
credit of the country, and to show the world, at this
period of difficulty, that, whatever Government we may
have, we are disposed to give to that Government, with-
out distinction of party, a fair and liberal support.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority for the motion - 175
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud chers by the minority.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the
chair being again put,
Mr. HUME said he intended, in Committee, to move
that the tax be limited to one year's duration; and un-
less it was distinctly understood that the present pro-
ceeding was merely pro formd, he should oppose the
going into Committee that night.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
plained that the resolution he was about to propose was
merely that the tax should be granted for a further
time. The House would have afterwards to fix the
limit.

Mr. lIUNIE was satisfied, provided an opportunity
would be afforded of discussing the question of the du-
ration of the tax.

Mr. BRIGIIT observed that, as the proposition for
the five per cent. income-tax had been abandoned, and
as the Government did not intend to propose any addi-
tion to the taxes of the country, he should not perse-
vere in his motion with regard to the legacy and probate
duties. He could not bring forward his proposition to
extend those duties to real property as a substitute for
the present income-tax, as it would not produee one-half
the revenue; he thought, therefore, it would be better
to submit it as a substantive proposition at some future
time. But should Government, during the present or
the next session, propose to add to the existing taxes,
and an alteration of the duties he referred to should not be
a❑eluded in the scheme, he should then bring the subject
under the consideration of the House.

The Howie then went into Committee of Ways and
Means, and a resolution was passed, pro forma, for con-
tinuisg the present tax upon incomes for a further
period to be hereafter limited.
The House having resumed, the resolution was re-
ported, and the Committee ordered to sit again on Mon-
day next.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS (COURT OF ROME)

BILL.

Lord PALMERSTON moved that this Bill, which
had been brought down from the Lords in the early part
of the evening, be read a first time.
Sir R. INGLIS did not intend to provoke any dis-
cussion on the present occasion with regard to this mea-
sure, hut, as it was one of very great importance, he
wished to impress on the Noble Lord the necessity of
giving full opportunity for discussing it—(Hear)--and
to express his hope that the second reading might not
be pressed forward with undue haste or precipitation.
Lord PALMERSTON proposed to fix the second
reading for Monday se'nnight.

Sir It. INGLIS did not think there was a possibility
of Government being able to bring it on so soon, and
suggested that a more distant day should ha named,
when they might depend upon its being brought on for
discussion.

Mr. PLUMPTRE declared his intention of giving his
most determined opposition to the Bill.

Colonel SIBTIIORP thought it unfair to bring on
even the first reading cf a measure of this character at
that late hour of the night. It would appear, however,
that Ministers were becoming uncomfortable in their
offices, and began to be aware they roust soon vacate
them (and for his part he cared not how soon)—
(" Hear," and a laugh)—and therefore they were reck-
less. By this Bill (which was a new attempt against the
Protestant Church) they showed that they had neither
the fear of God or man he:ore their eyes.—(Hear, bear.)
He protested against the introduction of such a measure,
and should oppose it in every stage.—(" Hear," and a
laugh.)
Mr. HINDLEY considered the Bill had been much
improved since its first introduction into the other
House.--(Order, order.) He &till, however, entertained
a great objection to it. What good could it do to this
country to establish diplomatic relations with the Sove-
reign of Rome ? Already we spent 150,0001. a year in
diplomacy, as he believed, without any benefit to the
people of England, but merely to give an opportunity:to
some members of our aristocracy to reside in foreign
countries at the public expense.—(Hear.) His objection
to the Bill was not on account of the religion of the So-
vereign of Rome, but he thought when that Sovereign
asserted a spiritual authority over all who professed the
same religion, it was a matter for consideration whether
it would not be unwise in a Protestant country like this
to open diplomatic relations with him.—(Hear.)
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Monday so'nuight.

BORoUGII POLICE SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. EIUTT movea for kayo to bring in a Bill for au
thorisinT, the establishment of a fund for this purpose.—
Agreed to.
NAVY, ARMY, AND ORDNANCE EXPENDI-

TURE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIINVER moved
the nominalon of the Committee on this subject.
Mr. OSBORNE objected to such en important Com-
mittee bting named at that late hour, and moved the
adjournment of the debate.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged
uron the Hon. Member the importance of the COM-
mittee proceeding in their inquiry at as early a period
as possible. It was not likely, if they adjourned the
debate, that there would be a fuller attendanc© than at
present.

Mr. OSBORNE opposed the motion on constitutional
grounds. He looked on the appointment of this Com-
mittee as a dangerous precedent, and as an abdication of
the functions of Government.

Sir G. GREY said the appointment of the Committee
had already been decided upon by the House. The pre-
sent question was merely who should be upon it. The
Hon. Member had given no notice to substitute any name
for any one of those proposed.
On the first name of the list, that of Lord Seymour,
being called over,
Mr. OSBORNE objected to this name, and complained
that there were no members of the army and nuyy
named in the list proposed by the Government. He
looked upon the Committee as a collection of persor:s
formerly in office, who, having culled before theta a few
generals and admirals, would draw up a report that no
reduction conl.l be made.

The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, and Lord Seymour's name was placed on the Com-
mittee, as were the names of Mr,. F. Manic, Mr. Hume,
Mr. G. Bankes, Sir J. Graham, Marquis of Granby, Sir
W. Molesworth.

On Mr. Curry's name being proposed,
Colonel SALWEY said, that without wishing to ob-
struct the appointment of the Committee, he must, in
return, express his surprise that no military mien were
proposed on the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUES said, it
had been conceived that the opinion of professional nun
could best be elicited in the form of evidence.

Mr. WAKLEY though it would bo better to place
some naval and military men on the Committee, as
civilians could not, unassisted, form a fitting judgment
of the professional evidence laid before them.

Sir G. GREY said it was an extraordinary proposi-
tion on the part of the Hon. Gentleman, that civilians
could form no opinion on naval and military expendi-
ture ; the Hon. Gentleman being one of the foremost
on all occasions to take objections to naval and military
estimates.

The name of Mr. Corry, Mr. Walter, Mr. E. Ellice,
Mr. W. Miles, Mr. J. Greene, and Mr. Baring were
then added.

On Sir T. Acland's name being proposed,
Mr. G. THOMPSON insisted upon the necessity of
at least ono professional man being on the Committee.
It appeared to him that otherwise the Committee would
be entirely at the mercy of the witnesses. What
would be th© respect paid by artist witnesses to a
Committee on art, no Member of which knew anything
about art ?

Mr. LABOUCIIERE vindicated the selection made
by his Right Hon. Friend, and among other Members of
the Committee pointed out Sir James Graham, as a gen-
tleman whose practical knowledge of the management (it
the navy rendered him more valuable on this Committee
than a citizen admirals would be.

Mr. M. MILNES considered the Committee as it stood
would be infinitely more useful, and infinitely more
satisfactory to the country, than if it were a Committee
at all compostA of professional men.
Sir 11. VERNEY said that a professional man on the
Committee would direct inquiry to many matters of
which non-professional men had no idea.
The Earl of LINCOLN admitted that the names of
Sir James Graham and Mr. Corry were satisfactory as
regarded the navy, but ho thought the composition of
the Committee would be improved by the addition of a
member connected with the army.
Sir. T. Acland's name was then added.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

The following Committee on the miscellaneous esti-
mates was nominated:—Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Her-
ries, Earl of Lincoln. Mr. Henry, Mr. Henley. Sir
George Clerk. Mr. Rice, Mr, Stafford, Dr. Bowring,
Mr. Parker, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Horseman, Mr. Has•
tings Russell, Mr. Henry Arthur Herbert, and Mr.
Corbelly.
The House then adjourned at half-past 12 o'clock.