The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-28 00:00:00

THE

ought to pay. But after all, it was a mere matter of
calreulatiol!, a:id OS ncli he d:d not set how it could ;;re
sent even a fortui:lable, much le Ls an imAtperable, ditil-
culty.—(Hear.) Because everything could not be done,
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer certainly had not proved that nothing ought to
be a-tempted--(llear)—while, for his own part, he was
convinced that were the country to see an honest endea-
vour to smooth away the grossest inequalities, and to
redresi, the most glaring injustices, it would be amply
satisfied. The Right lion. Gentleman had expressed
his astonishment at the small sum yielded by schedule
D. and lie had thrown out insinuations that that portion
of the tax was dishonestly withheld. Such might be the
case, but if so, it was the fault of the machinery in use.
Let the pressure of schedule D be fairly and equitabl
adjusted, and the country would not oiject to any inqui
sition necessary to secure honesty in the payment.—
(Hear.) It was upon the middle classes that the inequa-
lity of the tax principally fell; but this country was
essentially a middle-class country—with, some destitution
at one end of the scale, and some overgrown and gigantic
fortunes at the other; the great mass of the population
belonged to a middle class. Now God forbid that he
should advocate class legislation in the usual sense of
the term; but surely, if the legislation was to be in the
hands of any one class, justice would delight to see it in
the hands of those who were to the general body of the
population us a thousand to one, rather than in that of
others who wire to society in general but one to a thou•
sand. It was his conviction, however, that the present
tax must, sooner or later, be altered. As it existed at
present it could not last long. Lie, therefore, in the
name of his constituents, directed an earnest and anxious

appeal to the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment yet again to take into consideration whether some-
thing might not be done to alter that inequality, and to
redress that injustice of which the country complained,
and of the satisfactory adjustment of which the country
believed, and he believed, the possibility.—(Eieur.)
Mr. TRELAWNY would vote against the motion of
the Honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose.

He believed that the pressure of the income-tax,
whether just or unjust, was analogous to that of all
kinds of taxation. The Honourable Member for the

West Riding of Yorkshire had shown the House how
disproportionately heavy was the share of customs and
excise duties which fell upon the poor compared to the
rich man, and the income-tax went upon the same prin-
ciple. if it was a wrong one, then let there be a general
revision of taxation.—(Hear, hear.) He held, however,
that under present circumstances, and in the present
state of the public mind, it would not be advislble to re-
mit this tax, but to continue to exact it, at least until a
fair trial had been given to the late commercial measures
of relaxation.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that no oppo-
nent of the income-tax had made out so strong a case

against it as had the Right Honourable Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer himaelf.—(Hear, hear.)
That Right Honourable Gentleman had proved that in
every way schedule D was loaded with injustice. He
would, therefore, urge the Honourable Member for
Montrose not to give even that sanction to the mea-
sure which was implied in his motion, but to divide upon
the main question, and to refuse to go into Committee at
all.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. J. BONIIAM CARTER would oppose the
motion of the Hon. Gentleman the Membar for Mon-
trose. The country, in opposing the tax, was
hardly aware of the difficulties of the Government, and
at the same time took an exaggerated view of the in-
justice and inequality of the impost ; but, at any rate,
whatever might be the opinion of the country, this was
not the proper time to refer to a Select Committee a tax
which was absolutely needful for the preservation of the
public credit. They all knew how Committees upon such
subjects were manage el. No one could say when such a
tribunal would agree to a report, or whether they would
agree to one at all. He thought that reference had been
too fresly made to extreme cases as showing the injus-
tice and inequality of the tax, and under all the cir-
cumstances of the case he should not consider that he
was justified in supporting the motion of the Honourable
Gentleman.

Mr. URQUIIA RT said he had paid great attention to
this question, and, after much anxious consideration,
was persuaded that the course pursued by the House on
matters of finance was not wise or proper. It was ono
of the gravest questions which tho House could consider
whether they should adopt direct or indirect taxation,
or a general principle. At present they were but making
an experiment, but so far from applying themselves to
the main point at issue, they had suffered themselves to
be led into details which could but little affect it, and
had not gone the right way to get a solution of their
difficulties. He was firmly convinced that it would be
most vexatious and unwise to heap up one system on
the back of another system. Instead of discussing the
course they should pursue, and of determining whether
they should abandon the old or adopt the new system,
the House had mixed up in that debate a number of
subjects, such as the national defences, the inequality
of the operation of the income-tax, and the relaxation
of duties, which had nothing to do with the real
merits of the question, and in so doing had not, be sub-
mitted, taken the proper means for examining into them,
He should certainly support the proposition of the
Honourable Member for Montrose, not because it
answered all the objects which he should like to see
attained, or was likely in any degree to cure the disorder
nto which our financial system had fallen, but because
would moot the whole question in and out of the
The Honourable Member for Hull, in ridiculing

,OUSQ.

the principles of direct taxation, had alluded to Wai
Tyler and the poll tax ; but the Honourable Member
did not seem to be aware that he and Wat Tyler used

the very same arguments, and that the objection which
existed to that tax related rather to the agency by which
it was collected than to the principle on which it was

rounded. If the House meant to meet the question

fairly, they must do away with that system of centrali-
zation which was now crushing them—they must look
more to the adoption of local Government, and then
they would be free from the weight of business,
to which they were unequal, and would be able to
apply themselves to the reform of the whole financial
position. If any one moment could be propitious for
such measures it would be the present, when events
were every day occurring in foreign countries which
showed that the people were determined not to submit
to centralization, and that where it was established it
was destroyed. He was convinced that direct could not
be introduced on the back of indirect taxation, and that

they must look to the support of municipal and popular
bodies to carry out the former as that which was best
suited to this country.
Mr. MITCHELL said that the very reasons advanced
by the Honourable Gentleman against the measure were
those which induced him to support it. The argument
used by the Honourable Member for Tavistock in sup-
port of the tax was the argument used by Wat Tyler
against the poll tax, and the statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
the income-tax was much evaded at present would lead
him (Mr. Mitchell) to vote against it.—(Hear, hear.)
He had never heard such an argument in his life for
the perpetuation of a tax as the fact that many per-
sons did not pay it who ought to do so; and he
thought the Right Honourable Gentleman should in-
troduce a measure to press the payment alike
on all those who were liable to it. Although he would
be much affected by the inquisitorial operation of the
tax, he would prefer to endure all its consequences
rather than those should escape who were equally bound
with him to pay it. The operation of the tax as it stood
at present was singularly unjust; and he was persuaded,
even from the arguments of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, that it should be restricted to incomes of 5001.
a-year. It was unfair to tax the tradesman and the pro-
fessional- man in the same proportion; because the in-
comes of the latter depended on their health, whereas
those of the former were not much affected by illness or
a fit of sickness. He had been excessively disappointed
with the course taken byethe Government in respect to
this question. Although so many years a member of
that House, he could never be accused of offering a fac-
tious opposition to any measure; but in the present
case, he believed a gross injustice had been done to
those in schedule 1). The impression on men's minds out
of doors, he could assure the House, was that the Go-
vernment would not bring in any measure which they
did not think would have the approbation of the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel),
who had been consulted on this tax, proposed and car-
ried by him at a time when he had a large majority of
the landlord classes with him. The Right Hon. Baronet
was pledged to the tax, and therefore the Government,
it was supposed, did not think themselves justified in
abandoning it. The people out of doors thought there
were two parties—the gentlemen on the 'Treasury bench,
and the gentlemen who followed the Right Hon.
Baronet, who settled between them the measures which
were to be brought forward, and did not give any other
persons the chance of doing anything else but agreeing
with them.
Mr. NE WDEGATE (amid cries for a division) pro.
ceeded to say that it had not been his intention to speak
on the question, but that having listened attentively to
the arguments which had been used against the pro-
position of Government, he thought Hon. Members
had completely contradicted each other's arguments.
The Hon. Member for Montrose objected to the tax
because it was under the direction of Commis-
sioners appointed by the nation, who might be
supposed to have some interest in its operation ; but
he could not suppose this would have much weight
with the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ad-
mitted that every landlord was taxed on 20 per cent.
more than he received, on account of the outlay to
which he was subject; but the Right Hon. Gentleman
had proposed no feasible plan for remedying this injus-
tice. He wished the house to observe that men of
every shade of opinion and representatives of every in-
terest, with the sole exception of the landlords, had
objected to this tax, while they were the most heavily
burdened and had to pay the largest share of the tax.
What conclusion could be drawn from the opposition to
this measure, so varied as it was, but that direct taxa-
tion was so invidious in its operation, that it would be
always liable to complaints of injustice? They might
say no form of taxation could be perfectly just, but had
any tax ever been met with such arguments as this, into
which they had been forced by the difficulties of the
Exchequer?—(Divide, divide.) In voting for this tax
for three years, he begged to protest against its being
supposed that lie supported it as a permanent measure;
and he thought that if Government acted rightly, they
would give no shadow of a reason for thinking they
looked upon it in such a light.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. HORSMAN (who was received with some impa-
tience for a few minutes) said lie was disposed to agree
with those who could not sec any practical object in the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Montrose. The
question was one which the House had already decided
—(llear, hear)—and after the deliberation they had
bestowed on that decision he did not see much chance of
their being induced to alter it.—(Hear, hear.) His own
views as to the tax were the same as they had ever been,
but ho could not help remarking that the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) and the Right Hon. the Chancellor of

SUN, LONDON,

the Exchequer had told the House they had inquired
into the ope:atit.n of the tax, and had come to the
conviction that the injustice of it cold not be remedied.
—(llear, hear.) That opinion coming from those who
had every rreans of information, as well as the dis-
crimination to determine its value, must have great

weight with him ; and although it did not alter hi,
opiriou, the expression of it in such a qnarter would
render it presumptuous in him dogmatically to insist
en his own opinions, and to maintain that they
alone were right. He had hitherto refrained from
addressing the House on this point ; for though
the plan he had introduced had bzen misre-
presented and misunderstood, he thought it more
becoming in him to show that he- did not wish to change
the decision to which they had arrived. The lion.
Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell) had published a
letter to his constituents, in which, referring to his (Mr.

Hersrnan's) plan, he stated that, after having given it
the fullest consideration, he was convinced it would
make the injustice of the income tax greater than it was.
He defied the lion. Member to mention one class of

cases in which his plan answered the description of in-
creasing the inequality without remedying the injustice
of the tax, and he challenged him to produce, not a
multitude of instances, but one case which would make
out his statement. He was favourable to direct taxation,

and therefore he wished to see the income-tax improved,

in order that it might be made permanent. But having
already submitted a proposition for equalization to the
House, with an unsuccessful result, he was not prepared,
in the present state of the question, to offer any further
opposition to the income-tax. Ho thought they might
do better service to the country by applying themselves
to the great subject of the revision of the existing sys-
tem of taxation—a task for which a great and compre

hensive plan was necessary, and which could be under-
taken with effect only by the Government. He hoped
that Ministers would address themselves to it, with a
view to accomplish a settlement of the question in the
course of the next two or three years; and if they did
so,.he believed they might reckon with confidence on the
co-operation of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL had felt rather surprised at the
formal challenge addressed to him by the Honourable
Member for Cockermouth. It would bo in the recollec-
tion of the house that he had pointed out two griev-
ances ae arising u❑der the plan proposed by the
Honourable Gentleman. That plan would tax an in-
come, not according to the interest which the individual
might have in it, but according to the sources from
which it arose; if the source were in its nature per-
manent, then the individual was to pay the higher rate
of duty. He went on to show that the source might be
permanent, and the interest of the individual terminable
and fleeting; and he asked the Hoare to say whether
this consequence would be just, that a widow might
have a small annuity of 1501. secured on land or perms
nent sources—a fleeting annuity, of which, if she were to
leave anything at her death, she would bo compelled to
make an annual saving; and yet, according to the scheme
of the Hon. Gentleman, she would be taxed at the higher
rate.

Mr. HORSMAN—Certainly not.
Mr. CARDWELL—Were they. to be condemned if
they refused to adopt a plan which would have that
effect, at the suggestion of the Hon. Member, who did
not perceive that that would be
,the consequence 2—
(Cheers.) He said that if they were to ascertain by any
conceivable rule what that widow would have to pay,
they must have a public inspector to account with the
widow personally as to the nature of her income; and
he said that this would add immeasurably to the ex-
pense of the plan. He then took the case of a trader
trading on borrowed capital, who would be taxed at the
rate of 6d., whilst realised property was to7pay Bd. in
the pound. Now both paid at the same rate, and the
trader was not called upon to make any official return
of his circumstances; but if this difference were to be
established, there must be a full disclosure and accurate
statement to the Government.—([lear, hear.) The
lion. Member could not be more desirous elan he was
that taxation should be levied in the mode by which it
would full most fairly, and with least pressure, on the
tax-payer.
Mr. HORSMAN said a more complete misunderstand.
ing of what he had stated could not be imagined, than
that into which the lion. Gentleman had fallen. The
Hon. Gentleman said he proposed to tax an annuitant at
the higher rate. That was the very case he stated that
he intended to tax at the lowest rate; and not only had
he specified this in the schedule of duties, but it was the
very case by which in his speech he illustrated the hard-
ship of the present system.
Mr. GOULBURN had not the least doubt, after the
Hon. Gentleman's statement, as to what had beef his
intention; but his Hon. Friend and himself, in the obser-
vations they made on his speech, addressed themselves
to what the Hon. Gentleman had stated.—(Hear, hear.)
There was no point more clear throughout the Hon.
Gentleman's speech than that schedule A would be
charged with a duty of Bd., whilst under other schedules
a lower duty could be imposed.
Mr. ANSTEY would support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose.
The House then divided—
For the amendment 73
Against it
Majority against the amendment 211
The House again divided on the question that the
Speaker do leave the chair—
.

For the motion .
Against it ....
Majority -- 311
The House then went into Committee
On the first clause, _

. 323

Major BERESFORD rose to move that the con•
tinuance of the income-tax be for two years instead of
for three. He considered that there was something pe-
culiarly unfortunate in the period of three years. Twice
the income• tax had been imposed for that period. This
was an awful triennial visitation which they were called
upon to undergo. He very much feared that the impo-
sition of the tax for so long a period as three years
would be tantamount to its perpetuation; and with this
feeling, notwithstanding that he deprecated the idea of
embarrassing the Government, he felt it to be his duty
to move that the words " two years" be substituted for
" three years."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ac-
quitted his Honoureble Friend of any intention to em-
barrass the Government, but he could not give his as-
sent to any such motion as that which had been intro-
duced by the Hon. Member. The tax would most
assuredly be required for three years, for he feared
there was but little prospect of their being able to
equalise the revenue and expenditure before that time.
The amendment was negatived without a division,
and the blank was filled up with the words " three
years." The other clauses of the Bill were then
agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered
to be received this day.
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of
the Committee of Supply,
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report, which was
agreed to.
The following orders were postponed :—Landlord and
Tenant (Ireland) Bill, second reading to Tuesday next:
Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome Bill,
second reading on Tuesday week.
The Insolvent Debtors (India) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

The Borough Police Superannuation Fund Bill was
read a third time.

The Joint Stock Companies Bill—Committee, post-
poned
until this day.
The LORD ADVOCATE moved the appointment of
a Select Committee on the Law of Entail (Scotland)
Amendment Bill.
Mr. OSWALD moved that the name of Mr. Ewart be
omitted, and that that of Mr. J. Stuart be sustituted.
The House divided—
For retaining Mr. Ewart's name ... 66
Against it
Majority —34
After a short discussion the names of the other Mem-
bers were agreed to.
Sir DE LACY EVANS moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the time for payment of rates and taxes
by Parliamentary electors.
The question having been put,
Mr. FORBES moved as an amendment, " That the
House do now adjourn."
The House divided—
For the adjournment l2
Against it 5l
Majority —39
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. lIUDSON complaining, that while the friends of
the Hon. Member for Salford were not in office he used
to move the adjournment of the House at twelve o'clock
every night. But since they came in he allowed any
and every sort of business to be transacted at any hour
of the night. He wished the Hon. and Gallant Member
for Westminster would explain the objects of this Bill
before he obtained leave to introduce it,
Sir G. GREY said that leave had already been given
to the Hon. and Gallant Colonel.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUDSON did not understand that such had been
the case.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE thought that the Hon. and
Gallant Gentleman should not be allowed to harass the
House year after year with the same Bill.
Mr. OSWALD explained, and the matter was suffered
to drop.
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the petition of George
Shillibeer (presented 3d March) be printed with the
votes.
Mr. TUORNELY opposed the motion.
After a short discussion, the motion was negatived.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at One o'clock.

DEATH OF SIR WILLIAM GOSSETT, TUE SERGEANT-
AT-ARMS.—We regret to announce that Sir
William Gosset, the Sergeant-at-Arms of the
House of Commons, died at eleven o'clock yesterday
morning, at his country residence, near Woolwich.
The deceased gentleman had been indisposed some
time, and his illness was much aggravated by an
accident which happened to him some short time
since. While returning home from his official duties
he was knocked down and run over by a cab, which
broke his leg, and since then the deceased has not
been in attendance at the Ilouse of Commons more
than once or twice.
BURKE'S PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE FOR 1848.
—We are requested to state that Mr. Colburn has this
day published Mr. Burke's " Peerage and Baronotage
for 1848," a new edition, revised and corrected through-
out from the personal communications of the nobility,
&c., and containing all the new creations, in one volume
(comprising as much matter as 20 ordinary volumes)
with 1,500 engravings of arms, &c., bound, which can
❑ow be had of all booksellers. Also, lately published,
Mr. Burke's History of the Landed Gentry," a genea-
logical and heraldic dictionary of the untitled aristoc-
racy of England, Scotland, and Ireland, two volumes
royal Bvo.