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

stead.—(Laughter.) The Gallant Captain :then read an
extract from a speech of Mr. Cobden, who commented
with much severity on the idleness and demoralisation
on board our men-of-war, and as an instance of the former
stated, " that they were on certain occasions mentioned
afraid to go to sea because it was rough." That
(con-
tinued Captain Townshend) was the greatest injustice
—fte most unwarrantable libel upon the naval ser-
vice of this country that any man could have been
guilty of.—(Hear. hear.) He was sorry the Honour-
able Gentleman (Mr. Cobden), who represented the
opinions of, and had such influence over so many
of his fellow-countrymen, had so'far committee-1 himself;
but he hoped that Honourable Gentleman had already
discovered his error, and that he would have the common
decency to correct it.—(Laughter.) The fact was be
had represented not what be had himself seen, but what
had been told him by an American Consul. If the
Honourable Gentleman had been on board any of our
men-of-war, he would have soon discovered the order
and perfect discipline observed. Our gunnery was new
so much improved, that if the Honourable Gentlemen
opposite (Mr. Mentz, who was seated on the Opposition.
beaches with a large stick in his hand, put up his stick •
as a mark, he (Captain Townshend) would bet his life
it would be shot down before the Honourable Gentle-
man had time to shave himself.—(Laughter.) The,
Gailaot Member reiterated his disapproval of the mes-
sure, but said he felt it his duty to support the Govern-
ment, as the several constituencies throughout the
country had not cried out against the measure.
Mr. G. J. TURNER entertained no objection what.,
ever to the general proposition of an income-tax, and if
it was imposed justly and equitably, it would have his
most cordial and hearty support. It was natural to
expect that the constituencies would judge of their
Members by the votes they gave. He, therefore,
ported the general proposition for an income-tax. Be
doubt the estimates were large, but he thought not
larger than the exigencies of the country required.
Should any mischance befal, the responsibility rested
on the Government ; and they must be supposed to
pOSieSS the best information as to what was likely to
occur. He was no advocate for reposing a blind con-
fidence in any Minister ; but every Member should -
consider what circumstances might exist, unknown
to himself, but present to the consideration of Mi-
nisters, which might require higher estimates than
he thought necessary. If he was convinced there
were none such, the straightforward course would
be to propose a vote of want of confidence in Ministers.
The arguments in support of the amendment appeared
to him most defective. One Hon. Gentleman recom-
mended that we should disarm; but where was the in.
riividual, even the greatest tax-payer in the country,
who would like to see this nation compelled to sue for
mercy at the foot of a foreign power ? He did not
think the army estimates at all too large, looking at the
increased facilities of steam transit which now existed ;
still he 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 three
kinds—from realised property, from trades, and from
professions. The first was unconnected with any labour
whatever ; the second arose frora capital and labour
combined ; the last was wholly derived from labour.
Could that be a just principle of taxation which threw
the same burden on labour, and au labour and capital
combined, as cn that income which. had no connexion
with labour ?—(Hear, hear.) ITe would not ex•
etnpt the two latter classes fi•om all burdens
whatever ; but it was most unjust to subject them to
the same tax as the income derived from realised pro'
party. A man who had 10,0001. a 3 ear from the latter
source paid the tax without touching his actual pro'
pert} ; while, in the other cases, it was so much de-
ducted from the yearly earnings of the tradesman or pro-
fessional man, who was thus compelled to labour ten
days in every year solely to pay the tax, without dee
riving any benefit to himself. The Right Hon. Gentle•
man below him (Mr. Goulburn) had said there was
compensation for this inequality in the other charges to
which realised property was subject. But it could never
be contended that one injustice should sanction another
—that two wrongs made a right. Then, it had been
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 re•
mained the injustice of taxing labour in the same ratio
as capital and realised property. The effect of an in-
come-tax on the fundholder, or a holder of long annui-
ties, for instance, was in fact a tax upon his capital which
he was yearly receiving back, and the case was the same
with the holder of leasehold or copyhold property.--
(Hear, hear.) In all these cases the net air
nual value of the income ought to be ascer-
tained, according to the tables of the insurance offices t
and why might not the same be done with the income*
from professions and trade ? The Chancellor of
the Exchequer might allege that this would material'y
reduce the revenue. Be it so: but why should not the
possessors of an assured income be taxed at a higher
rate—why should not there be a graduation of the in•
come-tax? Mr. Pitt had introduced the principle of
gradation; and the only objection that had been raised
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 cen-
sequence; the gradation might be so arranged as not to
incur any such danger. He considered that Ministers
had exercised a wise discretion in continuing the ex-
etnption to Ireland. The burden which that country
was sustaining from the new poor-law was such as to
require it; it had created a crisis in the sister island.
A similar crisis had overtaken the trade of this country,
and it was, therefore, entitled to the same con-
sideration. He should give his vote on this occasion,
after the most mature deliberation, in favour of the ,
amendment, believing that if the tax were only granted
for one year Ministers would be afforded an opportu-
nity of rendering it less obnoxious and unjust.—(Hear.)
Sir W. CLAY said the speech of the Hun. Gentleman
who had just sat down would have been much more ap-
propriate on Friday last. The tax might be unequal;
he admitted 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 expen-
diture of the financial year, commencing next month,
would be about 54,596,5001. ; and the income about
51,250,00 e/. ' • making certain deductions, the net defi-
ciency 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 enterieg 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 lion. Members had, on Friday evening, intro•
duced subjects entirely foreign to the question before
the House. He 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
millions 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-
tstion and excitement which would arise from the tax
being only voted for one year. But how did the Hon.
Member for Montrose reckon on making up the defi-
ciency? The House would never consent to reimpose
the taxes on provisions, in lien of which the income-
tax had been adopted. Was it proposed to call in aid
some great fiscal reform, which might carry the prin•
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 sys-
tom a taxation was not one that ought to be much
relied on in times of peace ; and he doubted whether
it could prudently be 'serried 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 case 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 nit.*
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. This 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 in
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 theprotection 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
burden; 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 Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth. 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. He
believed that a large portion of their revenue had been •
unnecessarily thrown away by the measures of the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). He 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 of the country as much
as possible.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he would not go into

the question respecting the renewal of the income-tax,
because even those who on principle most objected to,
such a tax admitted that in the present circumstances of
the et,untry w4c th.:t .hoittcl he ri.n..ivua.

. .
lle had uppybett the income tax on a former occasion,
and the experience 6f late years had not made hiaa