The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-14 00:00:00

that now, N% hether right or wrong, they were committed -
to the policy of free trade. Ile was d:sposed to give it
a fall and a fair trial. He did not wish to detract
from the aristocracy, but there was a middle power.
The middle classes were the safety and the glory of
the country, and if this tax bore hardly and unjustly
upon them, their interests ought first and chiefly to be
consulted.— (Hear.)
Mr. RICE said, that if the proposition of Ministers
was rejected, they could not give a greater blow to the
credit of the country. At the same time he thought that
there should be a lull inquiry into, and revision of the
existing system of taxation. But that could not be done
in one year. Sufficient time was required fur that pur-
pose. He contended that the strength of their nary
was the best security not only tor the defence of the
empire, but the general interests of commerce. With
regard to what had been said by the Hun. Member for
Cockermouth respe:Aing the inequalities of the income-
tax, he could assure the House it bore as hard on the
lauded interest as on any other. He knew a case in
which the rent received did not amount to SOW. a year,
yet the income-tax and other rates were 1,3.50/. The
parties affected did not complain of that ; and he only
mentioned it to show that all classes in the country
suffered from the inequality. He wished on that ac-
count to see the general system of taxation reviewed,
but at the same time he was convinced the credit of the
country required a continuance of the income-tax for
three years, and he should, therefore, support the propo-
sition of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. L. BUCK condemned the tax as the most re-
volting to the country that could be suggested. It had
been said that it emanated from his (the Opposition) side
of the House—(Hear)—but the House ought to recol-
lect that it was proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth, for the purpose of carrying
the measures which 'he afterwards proposed to the
House. He believed that nothing on earth could be
more injurious at that moment than an income-tax. Let
them look at their manufacturing districts, and the cow'
munity at large, and although they had not heard the
same complaints from the agricultural districts they
were in the habit of hearing, yet there was no doubt
their position was exceedingly precarious. Therefore,
although he was not in the habit of supporting any
motion of his Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hume), yet be
should on that occasion do so, and vote for his proposi-
tion, in preference to the measure brought forward by
her Majesty's Government to continue the income-tax
for three years. He was, however, convinced her Ma-
jesty's Government would do their endeavours to lessen
the general expenditure of the country, and on that
account, whenever they brought forward a general ro-
vision of the system of taxation of the country they
should receive his support.
Mr. LENNARD confessed that he looked upon the
income-tax as being the most odious that could be levied
or imposed, but he could not, at the same time, help
recollecting the precarious position in which the country
was placed. He voted the other night for the motion
of the Hon. ibieniber for Cockermouth, because he was ~
convinced that some inquiry ought to bo instituted, with
a view to make it as equal as possible on the whole cora-
!nullity. He had listened with great satisfaction to the
able speeches made during the debate, but he considered
them as totally irrelevant, for there could be no doubt
that measures of free trade had become irrevocable, and
that no chance existed of their retracing their steps-
Had he been in the House he would have voted against
those measnres, but now that they were carried, he was
willing to give them every facility in his power. The
only question before the House was, whether they should
give the income-tax for three years or support the motion
of the Hon. Member for Montrose, which limited it to
one year. It was a sort of vote of confidence or censure
on the Government, and he was not prepared to incur
the responsibility of turning the Government out of
office, and on that account he should support the propo-
sition of her Majesty's Ministers.
Lord DRUMLANRIG had heard enough to convince
!lim that the inequality of the tax was, if not altogether
fabulous, at least very fabulous in many of the state-
ments put forward. He could not understand how any
HoDourable Member, who voted for the repeal of the
corn- laws, could now come forward and vote against
the income-tax. He had not the honour of a seat ill
that House when free-trade measures were passed,
but considering the position in which the country was
then placed with regard to its credit, he certainly felt
bound to vote for the measure brought in by the Go-
vernment to continue the income-tax for three years
longer.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE could not, as an Irishman, give
silent vote on the question then before the House. The
people of England were at that moment suffering from
the infliction of an unjust tax, and representing as he did
the largest constituency in Ireland, he was anxious it
should be understood that he was not actuated by any
base, corrupt, or selfish motives in the vote he was about
to give. It he for a moment doubted what course
he ought to pursue, the speech of the Honourable
Member for Westbury would remove that doubt, for he
admitted the impost was most unfair and unjust ; and
the speech of the Honourable—though not very secure
—Member for Liverpool—(A laugh)—and last of all,
the excuse of the Right Hun. Baronet, the father of the
impost, for its continuance, by a comparison with se
unjust law, which shut out from the working classes air
and the light of heaven, left him no alternative. Looking
at these tbinge, and recollecting the feeling which ex-
isted against the measure in London, Manchester, Liver-
pool, and all the great towns of England, all of which
had declared against it, he was bound as a representative
of the people, to vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Montrose. Ile should next turn to an-
other important question, namely, how he, as an Irish•
man, as well as the other Irish Members, ought to vote.
lle should say, that. he read with the greatest pain *
speech said to have been made by his Hon. and Gal-
lant Friend the Member for Westminster, and the Hon.
Baronet the Member for Marylebone, in which they
alleged that the Irish Members were about to support
the Government on that question. He would take the
liberty of saying how they ought to act. What! sup-
port the Government, the individual at the head of
which had said that he would rather see the people of
Ireland dyed in blood, than grant justice to them ?
What ! support a Government who had sent a Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland, who was now reviewing his
troops in the presence of the people, to prevent them.
from expressing their opinions upon a question of deep
consideration to them ? What ! go in to the lobby with
the Hon. Member for Louth, as the loyal Swiss of the
Minister, to do as he .desired ? He trusted that the
popular representatives of Ireland would act in no such
manner, but that they would act in such a way as
would contribute to the weakness of the Government ot
the country.
Mr. HENLEY said that the lion. Member for Cork
had introduced another element of discord into this dis-
cussion, for he suggested as a reason why the proposi-
tion of the Government should not be supported, that
they had taken means to prevent the dismemberment of
the empire —(Bear.) The Hon. Member then proceeded
to contend that the measures of 1842 and 1845 had not
tended to produce financial prosperity in the country; on
the contrary, they led to the present difficulties. He also
argued that the tree-trade policy had operated in a man-
ner not at all calculated to allay the fears of the country
as to its results hereafter. He must also object to the
observations of the Hon. Member for Westbury, in re-
ierence to the colonies; for he looked upon the welfare
of the colonies to be identical with the prosperity of the
the State, and therefore they ought not to be lightly
dealt with. The Right Honourable Member for Oxford
University (Mr. Gladstone) entered into a statement
it figures to show that the silk trade was not injured by
the operation of free trade. Now, what was the fact?
Why, that the figures showed an increase of 80 percent.
in respect to the importation of that class of silk whitish
interfered with the silk weavers of Spitalfields. The
operation of the present system was calculated to benefit
the manufacturers, at the expense of the working men.
I'hey ought not to sacrifice one class for the benefit of
another. He did not complain of Hon. Gentlemen giving
the people cheap food, because, as they were going to
run the people in a race of difficulty, they ought at least
to reduce the pressure upon them in respect to the ne-
cessaries of lite. But the whole system showed that the
Government not only knew nothing of the financial con-
cerns of the country, but that they were equally unac-
quainted with the temper of the country. He believed
the Government had not taken a safe course in respect
to the finances of the country, yet he should not feel
himself justified, in the present state of affairs, to limit
the income-tax to one year.—(Hear, hear.) He should,
therefore, support the proposition of the Govern.
meat. He agreed with the Honourable Member for
the town ot Newcastle, that instead of Honourable
Gentlemen objecting to the income-tax, on the ground
of the inequality, they ought to show how an equal
amount of income could be raised by other means with
less inconvenience to the people. In supporting the
Government propositions, he did not mean to identify
himself with that policy of the Government which
brought about the present state of affairs.
Mr. MOWATT said, as a Liberal Member, he would
oppose the Government snd support the motion of the
Hon. Member for Montrose. He should be ashamed o
himself if he was considered to bo a supporter of the
financial policy of the Government. He, however,
thought the present Government had entirely failed to
fulfil the expectations of the country. So far from
being progressive, they adopted a retrograde policy.
Ile had hoped they would have brought forward it
plan of their own. The truth was, they were too
aristocratic, and took their plans from a clique.
Why did they not apply the probate duties to land?
—(Blear, hear.) There had been levied between
seventy and eighty millions of money upon move-
able property from that source, while not a farthing was
imposed upon the land. He wished to know why the
same duty was not imposed upon both ? The country
was in a crisis, and they had a deficient revenue, be-
cause the expenditure was greater than the income. In
this season of depression the Government demanded
three millions and a half. Was this the course for
middle-class Government to pursue ?—(Bear, hear.)
They were represented to be a middle-class Govern-
ment, and if they were not that, they were no Govern-
ment at all. Why not revert to forest lands ; if they
were sold they would meet the deficiency. The trade
and commerce of the country was in a state of paraly-
sis.--(Protectionists' cheers.) That was not attributable
to free trade.—(Hear, hear.) He scouted such a no-
tion—it was not worth while to refute it. The duty
on corn at the present moment was seven shillings a
quarter. It was stated that they wanted to remove
taxation from themselves, and to impose it on others.
They desired no such thing. All they wanted was to
distribute the burthen the country had to bear
equally on all. The Government showed great incapacity
in making such a demand in the depressed state of the
country—a demand for three millions, which they failed
altogether to justify. Instead of retrenching, they
asked for an increased expenditure of 600,000/. He

. _
made great allowarces for them in consequence of the
demands made upon them to increase the defences of the
country; but that was a reason why they should have
reduced thu expenditure. Whatrrer might be the