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

THE SUN LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 4, 1848.

Mr. HUDSON presented a petition from Whitby
against any alteration in the navigation-laws, and
also against the continuation of the income.tax.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from New-
tastle• under-Lyme against the continuation of the
income- tax; also a petition from Spalding against
any increase of the army and navy.
Mr. J. B. SMITH. presented a petition from Stir-
ling against the income-tax.
BEWDLEY ELECTION.
The Members appointed to try the merits of the
Bewdley election were sworn at the table and ordered
to sit to-morrow at 11 o'clock.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition
from St. Pancras against the income-tax.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Man-
chester praying for a modification of the income-tax,
and that a distinction might be made between income
and real property.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions against the
Jewish Disabilities Bill and the Diplomatic Relations
with Rome Bill.
POST-OFFICE.
_ _

Mr. BANKES gave notice of his intention, on
Tuesday next, to move for returns of the receipts and
expenditure of the Post-office.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

In answer to a question from the Earl of
ARUNDEL and SURREY,
Mr. C. ANSTEY stated that he intended to pro-
ceed with the Roman Catholic Relief Bill on Wed-
nesday next.
Mr. C. PEARSON presented a petition from the
parish of Lambeth against any increase in the mili-
tary establishments of the country, and against the
continuance of the income-tax.

5,000/. a year from rent, but the difference between I
them was this—the landed proprietor enjoyed:his in- 1
come for life, and it descended unimpaired
to his relations, while the physician en-
joyed his only, during health, and a thou-
sand accidents might remove it altogether. His
income has, in fact, no existence but through his
daily exertions; and he believed it would be
admitted that there was not a more dan-
gerous profession to be thought of than that of
the medical man, and yet he was to be taxed to
the same amount as the man who derived
his income from no exertions of his own, and who
could bequeath it to his heirs without diminution.
He would take another case—that of a young
man who had neither capital or income that
he could call his own. He would take the
case of a young man in a profession who
was struggling for a livelihood, and many such
cases there were ; where that man came under the
infliction of the three per cent. tax, what was
it that was taxed. It could not be said
that it was his income, for he had none ;
he had not established himself sufficiently to
say that he had one. It could not be said that the
tax was on his capital, for he had none.
No; the fact was that the tax fell upon
his industry.—(Hear, hear.) It fell upon that
which the Government ought to encourage, and do all
in their power to assist.—(Hear, hear). He thought
if there was any class of men on which the
tax ought to fall lightly, it was upon those
educated men who were poor, and whose incomes
of all incomes were the most precarious.—(Hear,
hear.) He believed that there was no country in the
world in which genius linked with poverty underwent
such endurances as itdid in England ; sometimes those
endurances were brought to light, as in the case of the
unfortunate Mr. Haydon; but he believed there were
hundreds of cases that were never known to the
world. In the case of Mr. Haydon, the public, when
too late, did make a generous effort to repair to his
unfortunate family the error they had committed
and the late Minister of the Crown had the gratifica-
tion to recommend the family of the unhappy
man to the consideration of the Crown,
and the still greater gratification of alleviating
in some degree, by his own beneficent act,
the last days of Mr. Haydon, but he believed there
were hundreds of cases in which no such steps had
been taken on account of their never coming to light.
It might be urged by Ministers that those who pro-
posed to amend the law as it at present stood ought
to be prepared to show them how the existing diffi-
culties could be overcome. In other words, before any
Honourable Member came forward to make a speech
upon the subject, he ought at least to be
satisfied in his own mind that some scheme
or other might be substituted for the one already in
existence. He admitted the force of such reasons,
and he was encouraged in coming forward on this
occasion, because he was convinced that the difficul-
ties in which Ministers found themselves were not
inseperable. He was convinced that a far more equal,
a far more just, and far more efficient measure
might be found than the one the country was now
suffering under.—(Hear, hear.) The present ine-
quality of the tax had never been justified, even by its
proposer, except on one ground, and that was, its tempo-
rary character. He had stated that, if it was intended
to be a permanent measure, the country ought never to
be asked to submit to it in its present shape ; but that,
being merely a temporary measure, he preferred facing
its difficulties for a short period to attempting the task of
equalising taxation. That being the case, he thought it
right to assume, that if it had fallen to the Right llon.
Gentleman's lot to make it permanent, he would have
proposed some amendments in the details.
Sir It. PEEL made an observation which did not reach
the gallery.
Mr. HORSMAN said be could point to various occa-
sions on which the Right Hon. Baronet had said that the
measure being merely temporary he preferred al-
lowing the inequalities to remain to facing the difficulty
of equalising them. He came .now to the question of
whether the difficulty of equalising was insuperable in the
case of the present Government. In their case he was
fortified with arguments which he thought they would
find it very difficult to answer—arguments furnished by
themselves, and also precedents which were perhaps of
more importance. In 1845, when the renewal was pro-
posed, the Hon. Member for Liskeard proposed the fol-
lowing resolution:—
" That the circumstances under which the renewal of
the income-tax is at present proposed are such as to
render it exceedingly improbable that Parliament will
have the power of dispensing with its continuance at the
end of three years, and that it is therefore the duty of
this House to take care that the tax be imposed in a
form in which its operation shall be less unequal and
inquisitorial than it now is."
On that occasion the proposal was merely for three
years, and almost every gentleman occupying a promi-
nent position in- the House took part in the discussion.
On that occasion the Noble Lord the present Prime
Minister. expressed himself with peculiar clearness. The
following were his words:—
" I have always been of opinion that inequality, vexa-
tion, and fraud were inherent in such a tax. It is im-
possible to deny its inequality, for no man can say that
it is equal for a person who has an income derived from
a landed estate, or from the funds, which he could leave
to his children entire, is in the same positiou as a person
in a profession, a surgeon, or an artist, whose bread de-
pends upon his health and the vigour of his constitution,
and who, by the loss of a limb, or a defect of eyesight,
may at any moment be deprived of the means of earning
any income at all. No man can say that these two per-
sons were similarly situated. Neither can any person
fairly deny that great vexation is inseparable from this
tax. No one can deny that a person who is engaged in
trade, and who must either submit to the pa)ment de-
manded of him, or show all his accounts and expose all
the matters in which he is engaged to the persons ap-
pointed by the Government—none c-in deny that such a
person is not subject to very great vexation. And then,
with regard to fraud and evasion—l believe no man who
has been concerned in the collection of this tax will deny
that his experience has shown;that great frauds are prac-
tised under this tax—that the man of the most inte-
grity and the most honour, and who gave his returns
fairly, was subjected to the greatest imposition of the
tax; while those who wished to evade the tax, either
found the means of doing so, or entangled themselves
and the Government in the most expensive proceedings.
Such being the faults of the tax, and having heard from the
Right Hon. Gentleman on Friday night that they were
faults inseparable from it, I might have well conceived that
by different modifications, and by alterations with respect
to uncertain incomes, and by changing particular pro-
visions which bore hard upon particular classes, the tax
might be made more equal and less vexatious."
Thus had the Noble Lord in 1845 objected to the in-
equality of the tax, but the Noble Lord took an objec-
tion of still greater importance, which looking upon the
exigency of the present time, might be taken as a pro-
phecy. What security, asked the Noble Lord, that in
two years a strong and general outcry might not be
raised for its repeal, and then how was the revenue to
be provided for? The Noble Lord had contended that
under these circumstances the tax should be rendered
as little vexatious as possible. His (Mr. Horsman's)
fear was, that the inequality of the tax was creating a
reaction against direct taxation. But the Right Hun.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
in the same debate expressed similar views.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then said, " That with re-
gard to the arguments against the income-tax, no at-
tempt had been made to answer them. It was arbitrary
and unjust in its nature, and unequal in its pressure."
So far for the injustice and inequality; but on the ques-
tion of placing it on a more equitable footing, the Right
Hon. Gentleman had said, " Although the income-tax
might be passed by persons ignorant of its nature, yet it
could not be so maintained; and would it not be dan-
gerous to peril the credit of a country by placing it on a
basis which could not be maintained?" He thought
that those opinions showed great sagacity, and he
trusted that he would not find them altered on the pre-
sent occasion. He now came to the means by which, in
his opinion, the difficulties attending the permanent
establishment of the income-tax might be surmounted.
He found that in 1845 the returns from the income-tax
were as follows:—The last year of the series in the re-
turn No. 100, was 1845, and from it 1846 did not mate-
rially differ. The returns were as follows: schedule A,
2,528,72114 B, 324,3391; C, 744,019/4 D, 1,678,5951.;
E, 327,7691. Total, 5,603,4431. This being 3 per cent.
on the income, represents the whole income as follows:
A, 86,698,100/ ; B, 11.120,200/4 C, 25,509,200/.; D,
57,511,700/ ; E, 11,227,8001.; so that the whole profits
under these five schedules amounted to 192,077,000/. in
round numbers. Now that being the whole profits of
the country—
Mr. COBDEN—lncome.
Mr. HORSMAN—He called them profits merely as a
general term. Now if he could find any means of capi-
talizing these profits, it would at least help them so far
in arriving at the relative proportions which should be
paid by the different schedules. Taking Schedules A
and C at 25 years' purchase, and considering 13, D, and
E as life annuitants, the average value of all lives above
25, being at four per cent. with 12 years purchase, and
classing farmers with trades, &c., the result would be as
follows : Schedule A, at 25 years purchase,
2,167,452,5001.; schedule C, at 25 years purchase,
637,730,000/. The other three sections he should put
down as life annuities. Taking them as worth, on the
average, 12 years purchase, they would stand :—B,
133,442,4001. ; D, 637,730,000/. ; E, 134,853,6001. So
that calculating the incomes on realised property at 25
years purchase, and those derived from precarious
sources as life annuities, we should arrive at the
conclusion, that the whole capital of the coun-
try falling under the income-tax was 3,763,618,9001.
And if they tested it by other returns and calculations
which had been given of the capital of the country,
they would not, he believed, find this conclusion to any
material extent incorrect. His object in making these
calculations was to ascertain whether they could not ar-
rive at some sort of judgment as to the relative propor-
tion in which the tax should be imposed on precarious
and permanent incomes.—(Hear, hear.) The present
income-tax of 5,600,000/. being paid on capital in the
way he bad just stated, was equal to a payment of rather
less than one and a half farthing in the pound of
capital. Now, one and a half farthing per pound of
capital was 37i farthings, or rather more than tid. of
income, or 3/. 15s. per 100/, calculating always four
per cent, for schedules A and C. According to this
calculation, if they took the relative values of perma-
nent property and precorious property—the one as
being worth 25 years' purchase, the other as an annuity
of 12 years' purchase, about 9d. in the pound became
the fain alma of the permanent property to the t4Z•

And for precarious property, or those incomes charged
under schedules B, D, and E, ono farthing and a half
per pound at twelve years' purchase is 4id. otincome, or
1/. 17s. 6d. per 100/. would be the just proportion. The
slight discrepancy between these proportions and the
previous one, of from 12 to 25 years' purchase, arose
from one farthing and a half not being the exact sum,
and the decimal multiplied by millions affected, though
not materially, the result. If they compared these
rates of charge with those paid under the present Act,
then as 9d. in schedules A and C was to 7d. and 4d. in
B, D, and E to 7d., so the sums received, under the new
and old charge in each schedule would be to one another;
and they would appear as follows:
Old Scale. New Scale.
Schedule A £2,528,721 X 3,251,179
„ B 324,339 208,510
744,019 956,600
1,678,595 1,080,700
327,769 210,710

£5,603,443 £5,707,720
There would, therefore, be but little difference between
the new scale and the old. He felt, however, that there
were many objections to the imposition of the tax in the
way now proposed. It altered, unnecessarily, the
charge on farmers, and adopted the error in the present
Act of charging alike all incomes under schedule 1),
whether from trade and manufactures or proiessons. It
might be assumed that the incomes in schedule A arose
wholly from capital. Those in schedule B arose
Irons professions which represented skill and labour orly,
and trom trades, manufactures, and commerce, which
represented labour and skill combined with capital—he
would assume that these latter represented half labour
and half capital. Now it was evident that it could not
be an equal tax which would impose the same rate on
these two classes of income. Ile calculated land income
therefore at 25 years' purchase, professions at 12, and
commerce and manufactures between the two (inter-
mediate), or at 18 years' purchase, and leave schedule B
as at present. The following would be the result:—
Schedule A, at 9d..
„ B, unchanged 324,339
„ C, 9d. 956,600 at 9d.
ft D,take6d.asamean 1,440,933 at 7d. and 4id.
„ E, 4d. .

Total £6,183,761
Present income 5,600,000

Surplus
These were the two calculations he had made, but he
feared he had not succeeded in making them intelligible
to the House.—(Hear, hear.) The latter part of the
plan, however, he thought, if the House would favour
him with its attention, he should be enabled to explain
more clearly .—(Hear, hear.) It was the great detect
of the present Act, that ,under schedule D we
had two different classes of income, viz., those
arising from trade, manufactures, and commerce, and
those upon professions. Ile proposed to retain the
same number of schedules as in the present Act, but to
cast them differently. Incomes arising from professions
he would take from schedule D and place in schedule E,
which referred to incomes also of a precarious and ter-
minable nature, viz., emoluments arising from public
offices, leaving "D" entirely for incomes arising from
trade, commerce, and manufactures. And the scale of
tax he would then propose would be as follows:—On
incomes included in schedules A and C he proposed an
addition of one penny to the present rate of tax,
making eightpence in the pound.—(Hear, hear.) On
incomes which would be included in schedule E, viz.,
professions and emoluments from public offices, he pro-
poLed that the tax should be tourpence in the pound—
(Cheers)—and upon incomes included in schedule D,
viz., trade, commerce, &c., he proposed the inter-
mediate rate of sixpence in the pound—(Much cheer-
ing)—leaving B as at present. By this slight increase
on schedule A, they would relieve all the other classes,
and raise a revenue snore than equal to that derived
from the tax, and without those vexatious objections
tions to which the impost as now levied was liable. He
assumed that two-thirds of the present payment under
D was from buSiness, and one-third from professions ;
and taking the proceeds from the present tax as a basis,
the result would be :

Schedule A, at £3 6 8 per cent., would produce ...
£2,894.000 at Bd.
... B, (as now) ... 324,339
... C, at 3 6 8 ... 841,595 at Bd.
... D, at 210 0 ... 959,000 at 6d.
... E, at 113 4 ... 235,796 at 4d.

Total £5,581,030
—(Cheers)—instead of 5,600,0001, which had been the
produce of the last year. But Ministers calculated, in
their budget for the ensuing year, the income-tax as
produci g only 5,200,0001. His plan would give them a
surplus beyond this amount of 381,030L—(Much cheer-
ing.) He was aware that the plan he thus ventured to
submit might be taken to be liable to many objections,
but then what he contended was that it was far less
objectionable than the present Act, which imposed 7d.
in the pound on all incomes, from whatever source
arising.—(Hear, hear.) His proposition would at all
events fall more equally on the several classes of income
than the present, and he believed the scale he proposed
was so far just that it made a difference between those
incomes which were permanent, and which represented
accumulated capital—those which represented capital
and labour, and those which represented labour and
skill only.—(Hear, hear.) It had also this recommen-
dation, that it would relieve those who were most op-
pressed by the tax, as now imposed, while the only
additional burden which would be thrown upon any
class was the extra penny in :he pound on permanent
incomes—(Hear, hear) —a burden which he believed
would be cheaply purchased by the large amount of
relief it would give to the other classes, the satisfaction
with which the change would be received by the country
generally, and the ease with which the tax would be
collected —(Hear, hear.)
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. E. ELLICE rose to explain the grounds on which
he thought it essential under the present circumstances,
even the ugh he should be acting against opinions he
had previously expressed in that House, to give a firm
and decided support to Ministers on this occasion.—
(Ilear, hear.) While ho admitted that there were ine-
qualities and anomalies in tho tax as now imposed, the
peculiar circumstances of the time were such as should
induce them to pause before they adopted any new ex-
periments, or even entered into their consideration. He
had supported the imposition of the tax on a former oc-
casion as the only means of placing the finances of the
country in that position in which they ought to stand,
and also as the means of enabling Government to make
certain reforms in our fiscal arrangements—to unfetter
the industry of the country, and give a new impetus to
commerce. The results he had anticipated, both in
giving relief to trade and replenishing the Exche-
quer had been fully realised by the tax.—(Oh, oh.)
He had supported the proposition of the Honourable
Member for Bath to tax precarious incomes to only
half the amount of permanent incomes, and had also
supported the motion for an inquiry, with the view
of arriving at some more equitable arrangement in re-
gard to the legacy and probate duties.—(Hear, hear.)
He had not altered his opinion upon these points, and he
thought the time had nearly arrived when this House
must review the whole system of taxation, and deter-
mine what portion of it should remain in the shape of
direct taxes, and what portion the industry of this coun-
try might yet be able to bear in the shape of indirect
taxation.—(Hear.) But he contended that this ques-
of the income-tax should be left in its present state
umitil that time arrived. With regard to the numerous
meetings which had been held against the income- tax,
he believed they had heen composed, for the most part,
of persons who were affected by it, but who supposed
that Ministere required the money to spend wastefully
and extravagantly.—(Hear.) It should be shown that
the money was required for national purposes—(Hear)—
and he knew of no other tax that would as effectually
and less objectionably—whether its present anomalies
and inequalities were removed or not—raise the
money which was absolutely necessary to enable
the Government to maintain the efficiency of the
public service than the income-tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Then it should be remembered that Government had
already given way to the feeling of the country in having
abandoned the proposed increase—(Hear, hear, and
cheers)—and it would not only be most unwise, but most
unjust, now to refuse them that which was necessary to
place the finances of the country in that state of security
which would alone make it safe for them to continue to
undertake the management of public affairs.—(Cheers.)
Let them consider what might be the result of weaken-
ing the Government; it mattered not of whom it was
composed at such a time as this.—(Hear, hear.) They
could not mistake the symptoms of the times. Since
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan had been pro-
posed great changes had taken place.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not allude to them so far as any political conse-
quence might attach to them. So far as he could learn
the great revolution which had-so recently occurred in
another country was being carried out according to the
will of the people, by honest and able men acting upon
their own conscientious opinions; and he thought the
cause of humanity and the world were deeply indebted
to them for the manner in which they had maintained
peace and order. He believed, too, however visionary
he might once have looked upon their views, they were
honest in their expressed intentions of maintaining, as
far as they were concerned, the peace of the world, and
to restore peace and order throughout Europe. Apart
from political events, there were, however, circum-
stances which should make us anxious to place the
finances of the country on a sure footing.—(Hear, hear.)
Let them remember that public credit was a plant of
tender growth, and required care in its culture. Let
them not shut their eyes to events which might happen,
and the possibility of which made it of the highest im-
portance that we should place our national credit on a
firm footing. The finances of almost every nation had
become deranged in consequence of the warlike prepa-
rations which mutual jealousies had occasioned.--
(Hear, hear.) But so tar as was consistent with the
true interests of this great country he should, in the
Select Committee on the public expenditure, be willing
to carry out economy. The Hon. Member for
the West Riding had complained of the growing in-
crease in the estimates since the firstestablishment of
rememberLor d G r
the enormous Grey's 's Government;
s debt t t h
contractede l l o ne .
duringMemberthe
h war,u
and which we were now called upon to pay, and com-
pare it with the amount at the termination of that war,
he would then see what was the real burden which
pressed on the springs of the country. In 1813 14 the
enorm"
charge for the debt was only between twenty-five and
thirty millions, out of a total expenditure of sixty mil-
lions. Now it was thirty-two out of fifty millions,
leaving only eighteen millions as the real expenditure of
the country, which he did not think extraordinary for a
great empire like this.—(Hear.) It might be said why
not take the tax for one year, and in the mean time
remove its inequalities? But the time when they could ,
best examine the tax, with the view to place it on a more
satifectory footitig, w_GS when the Treasury was full..

(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) The burden was
no greater than it had been during the last six }ears;
and he preferred renewing the Bill as proposed, and
leaving the subject to be dealt with when the whole
system of taxinn should be revised.—(Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the amendment, be-
cause he objected to do anything that should give a per-
manent character to this tax.—(flear, hear.) The de-
ficiency in the revenue was the result of the policy in
which this tax had originated, and had been foretold by
him and his friends (the Protectionists) at the time.
They were told that the present condition of the com-
mercial classes was such that they could not bear the
burden of an income-tax; but that was not very consis-
tent with the declaration of Sir R. Peel in proposing it,
and of those free-traders who supported it, that the new
commercial policy which they had introduced would so
improve those classes as fully to compensate them for
this additional burden. The Hon. Gentleman here en
tered into a statement of figures showing tnat while the
product of this country which formed the elements of
our exports had been depreciated in the five years from
1841 to 1846 17 per cent., our imports had increased
during the same period from 64,377,0001., which they
were in 1841, to 75,953,00 U, which they were in 1846,
being an increase of 11,575,000/. So that while our
imports had increased 18 per cent., our exports, with all
our exertions, and after a sacrifice of 17 per cent. of the
value, fell short of our imports, and turned the balance
of trade against us to the extent of 6 per cent. He
maintained, therefore, that if they persisted in fostering
imports they would not only incapacitate the merchants
and ruin the manufacturers, but risk the credit of the
country, by creating a deficiency in the revenue. The
Hon. Gentleman more strongly to illustrate his posi-
tion, referred to timber, spirits, and other articles of
import, on which he had lowered the duty, and on which
there had been, he said, a contemporaneous increase of
prices laid on by the countries from which they came.
So much for the measures of free trade. The Hon.
Member for Cockermouth now proposed, as a most
charming system of taxation, as the very foundation of
free trade, that the income tax should be made a perma-
nent impost. Against such a proposal he would assuredly
record his vote. Every class was discontented with the
income-tax; but he could not understand the outcry
which was raised against the owners of real property
as being insufficent contributors to that tax, seeing that
it was subject, in addition, to a land tax, highway, and
poor rates, which amounted to upwards of 9,000,0001.,
being in direct taxation 15 per cent., or 11 per cent. upon
assessment. The Hon. Gentleman was therefore alto-
gether wrong in assuming that real property was un-
taxed in proportion to its value. It was proposed to tax
the fund-holder, but by doing so they would discourage
the investment of capital, and the reproduction of capital,
by cutting off capital at its source. Much had been said
of the burden of the income.tax upon the commercial
gasses. But the principle of the income-tax was to
allow many deductions in commerce, which were not
allowed in the case of real property. The landlord on
the contrary was taxed upon an income of 15 per cent.
more than he received. Then again the farmer was
taxed upon the body of his rent, and though his losses
on the year should equal the amount of his rent, still
was he taxed. Not so with the commercial man, who
was taxed only upon his clear profits or income. Much
had been said about the window-tax, but it should be
recollected that every shop and workhouse and counting-
house was exempted from it, while or.ly those farm
houses were exempted where the rent was under 2001.
It would also be found that the poor rate was assessed
upon land at 4-sths its value, and upon house property
at 2-3ds its value. And yet the very party who stripped
the agriculturists of their protection were now the party
who were the most clamorous for a transfer of taxation
from their own shoulders to those of the agriculturists.
For these reasons he would oppose the motion.
Mr. GOULBURN was anxious to say a few words on
the subject of the income-tax, believing that its con-
tinuance was essential to the maintenance of the public
credit, and with that credit the best interests of the
country. He would not enter upon the considerations
suggested by his Hon. Friend who had just spoken, but
confine himself to the question before the House, which
was, whether it was right to modify the tax in the way
proposed should the House be of opinion that such a tax
ought to be imposed. The principal argument of the
Hon. Gentleman against its present form was that it
pressed unequally upon the different classes of the com-
munity. He did not deny that it did so. That such
would be its effect was admitted when it was introduced,
and again when it was renewed. But he did not admit
the objection to be valid against it as a measure of
revenue, because the same objection applied to every
other tax.—(Hear, hear.) There never 3et was devised
the tax which could be made to press equally upon
all classes.—(Hear, hear.) They could only coun-
teract the pressure of one tax by the pressure of
another—(lronical cheers and laughter) and so
balance the whole taxation that it should press equally
on all. The land-tax pressed unequally on one class
as contradistinguished from another. SI with the
assessed taxes. Taking the favourite example of a
ph sician who kept his carriage and horses, the tax he
found for that necessary bore heavily upon him, com-
pared with the nobleman to whom it was merely a
luxury, with which he might easily dispense. He
maintained, therefore, that to say that a tax was unequal
in its operation, when discussing the general question
of the revenue of the country, was no conclusive argu-
ment against it. But, unequal as he admitted the opera-
tion of the income-tax to be, he would not admit it to be
so to the extent alleged by those parties who felt pati-
cularly aegrieved by it. The Hon. Gentleman said
those in schedule A and C being owners of what he
called reelised property, were paying a comparatively
small proportion of the tax, contrasted with those spe-
cified in schedules B and D. But he should consider
that there were countervailing circumstances of in•
equality, which really did tend to make up the differ-
ence between the two species of income. The landed
proprietor, who derived an income of 5,0001. a year from
his property, not only paid the income-tax on that
amount, but had to pay a large sum for repairs, together
with certain rates and other taxes, which were not paid
by the physician, and which consequently tended to
equalise the general burden of taxation on each re-
spectively. Besides, no matter what happened to
the landed proprietor, the assessment was en-
forced, while the physician, if he found at the close
of the year that his income was only 4,0001. instead of
5,000/., had only to go before the Commissioners and
obtain the repayment of the tax on the additional 1,0001.
He was prepared to defend the tax in its present shape,
even after the speech of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Horsman), whose knowledge of the subject and great at-
tention to it were insufficient to get rid of the accumu-
lated difficulties which must attend any attempt at ren-
dering the tax equal in its operation upon all classes.
The Hon. Gentleman proposed a charge of Bd. upon
schedules A and C, and, dividing schedule D into two
parts—one applicable to professtons—proposed a charge
on them of 4d. and 6d. respectively. The first objection
he made to that proposition was, that it was not only a
total deviation from the principle which had ever ac-
tuated those who had proposed a tax of this kind, but
that it was utterly inconsistent with our obligations to
the national creditor. The proposal was, that money
vested in the funds should be charged Bd. in the pound,
while money vested in other ways should only be charged
6d. ; thus directly imposing a charge upon funded
property of one. third more than was imposed upon
other property subject to this tax. This was a direct
violation of the assurance which had been given to those
who had lent their money to the public—namely, that
they should only be subjected to equal taxation with the
rest of the community ; and the Legislature ha t no
more right to tax funded property at a higher rate than
property vested in other securities, than it had to say to
the funded proprietor, "You shall give up a portion of
your property for the benefit of the nation."
Mr. HORSMAN Then the exemption applies
where the amount of stock held produces under 1501. a
year ?

Mr. GOULBURN said, that exemption equally ap-
plied to other property, and, therefore, could not, be
urged as an argument for taxing funded property at a
higher rate. This very point had been contested be.
tween Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Adding-
ton proposed an income-tax in 1803, and proposed to
withdraw the exemption which funded proprietors had
enjoyed. But Mr. Pitt demolished that part of the plan
in ten minutes, and the House unanimously confirmed
the principle which he (11r. Goulburn) now contended
for, that funded property must be dealt with the same
as other property, and not charged a higher rate of
taxation.—(Hear, hear.) Next the Hon. Gentleman
had complained of the hardships inflicted on annuitants
and persons whose incomes were only of limited duration
compared with that inflicted on those who had more
durable incomes ; and he had proposed to charge Bd. in
the pound on all incomes derived from landed property,
as in schedule A. But the Hon. Gentleman seemed to
have a very inaccurate idea of the nature of incomes de-
rived from land in this country.—(Hear, hear.) Take
any gentleman's landed estates, or even those of very
small extent, and they would be found saddled with pay-
ments to widows and children, and the interest of money
lent on security of the cl.tate ; and on every one of those
charges, according to the plan of the Hon. Gentleman,
Bd. in the pound would be levied. The poor widow
with a most limited income ; children deriving from land
scarcely sufficient to defray the expense of their educa-
tion, all would have to pay Bd. in the pound. Such
a regulation would involve cases of greater hard-
ship than any to which it was proposed to apply a
remedy. It would affect clergymen, the whole of
whom, deriving their income from tithes or compositions
of
thetithe Hon. Memberchargeds,wereh
ad
under
madethe
a most forcible scheduleoA.Ne pr
oatelonf
ago i
to the House in behalf of the working clergy, and had
expressed great sympathies for the inconveniences to
which they were subject. Now he proposed not only to
leave them, as before, excluded from exemption, but to
ri
epho shell
no
kn
etrhee, them an
eandadei
tt
si r onml
and
d char
e thgeer, owrhdeesret o r
income;
el ve
ought clearly to contribute to the public burdens.--
(Hear, hear.) Then he proposed to subject realised pro-
perty to a higher charge, contending that its endurance
and capability of being transmitted to children ought to
regulate the amount of charge thereon. He proposed
that sixpence in the pound should be charged on all
property in schedule I) not derived from professions.
Surely the Honourable Gentleman could not have read
the Act. It provided that every man living in England
who derived an income from possessions in Ireland
should be assessed under schedule D ; and did the
Honourable Member mean that a gentleman deriving
10,0001. from Irish property should be subject to a
tax of 4d. in the pound, while an English gentleman
deriving the same amount from property in Yorkshire
should be charged Bd.2—(Hear, hear.) Was that the
way to remedy the existing inequality? If there was a
ground of complaint it was that Ireland was not subject
to the property-tax in common with England; and the
only hold the House had on Irish property was by charg-
ing under schedule D those proprietors who resided in
England. The plan proposed would aggravate the
charge on the English proprietors, and reduce by one-
third that on the proprietors of Irish estates. The same

argument would apply in reference to colonial property— I
if indeed estates in the colonies could be called prop ley l
at the present moment—(hear, hear)—but perhaps the
Hon. Gentleman had not thought that worth considera-
tion in his plan. With characteristic fellow-feeling the I
Hon. Gentleman had shown great tenderness for the
gentlemen of the legal profession, and proposed to tax
them at one-half the rate imposed on those who had
property in the funds. Ho
,Mr. Goulburn) would
suggest whether the payments made to physicians, and
lawyers—not small in general—were not made in some
degree with reference to the limited period dui icg which
those profits were enjoyed. When un eminent lawyer,
practising before the Committees of Parliament, could
make in one year, by payments from his clients, 20,000/
to 30,0001., was it not probable that those payments had
some reference to the uncertain duration of such eraolu•
ments, and that they were not simply remunerations fair
services rendered, but something beyond that, in order
that provision might be made for a period when those
emoluments must cease?—(Hear, hear.) So that the
Hon. Gentleman's proposition amounted simply to this,
they were to pay the distinguished members of these
distinguished professions a sum calculated to remunerate
them for the short duration of their profits, and then to
turn round upon the public, who paid these large sums,
and ask them to pay a larger amount of income-tax, in
order to lighten the burden on the recipients of those
large remunerations. There was no justice whatever in
suc a proposition. It was true, incomes arisieg from
the exercise of professions were uncertain ; but, what
could be more uncertain than the tenure of emoluments
attaching to the high offices of the state?—(Hear.)
Not only did a vast amount of labour attach to these
offices, and a great waste of property and health, but
there was the additional uncertainty arising from coin
binations of patties, and from hostilities founded on
different views of political questions.—(Hear, hear.)
But, what would have been the feelings of the Hon.
Gentleman, or of the lion. Member for Montrose, or of
the public at large, if a Prime Minister had come down
to the House and said, " Gentlemen, I have to propose
a tax on all incomes, which will be periectly equal, ex-
cept that we, the Ministers of the Crown, will only pay
one-half the amount we impose on others."—(Laughter.)
The Hon. Member for Coekermouth would, doubtless,
have been the first to exclaim against the atrocity of
such a proceeding.—(fiear.) Seeing that his proposal
would leave inequalities as great, it not greater, than
those in the existing law; and seeing that it would press
with a degree of cruelty on some of the most de-
serving and helpless classes of the community, bs,
subjecting them to an aggravated rate of taxation,
it would not remove any of the objections which he
(Mr. Goulbourn) felt to a property-tax, but w, uld
make him more reluctant to support it.—(clear, hear.)
The fact was a large accession of income was needed to
keep up the credit of the country; that could only be
obtained by a tax imposed without any of those limits
tions which each class was anxious to bring forward for
it: own relief, and which, being founded on theory,
would never stand the test of practice. He did not
believe it possible to remove all inequality. The lion.
Gentleman's plan would be more cried out against than
that now in operation; ho must, therefore, resist the
proposition. The continuation of the tax for a limited
period was necessary; and if some little inequality did
exist, it should be remembered how much relief had
been afforded to the humbler classes by the removal of
those taxes in lieu of which the income-tax had been
imposed. This tax of five and a half millions was con-
fined to a very limited portion of society, to those who
were in the enjoyment of comparative prosperity; while
those who had been relieved were persons of limited in-
come, engaged in industrial occupations, who had not
the means of bearing burdens which might otherwise be
justly imposed on them, and for whom all felt a common
sympathy. The lowest individual in the empire was
compelled to eat bread, to use sugar, and other taxable
articles, the taxes on which must have been increased
had not the burden been borno by the higher and more
wealthy classes.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSMAN explained that he did not mean to
include lii-.h landlords resident in England in the class
on whom he proposed to lay a duty of only 41. in the
pound. It had not escaped his notice that they were
assessed under schedule D ; but he did not think this
the time for entering into minute details.
Mr. HUME was very sorry the debate had taken this
turn. He would not enter into the question of free trade
further than to say that it was quite a mist ,ke to suppose
that the tariff of the Right lion. Baronet opposite had
proved a failure. For ten years previous to 1842
the revenue had averaged 51 millions. Since that
period it had averaged 52 millions, exclusive of the
income-tax.—(Hear, hear.) When the propos:tion for
increasing the income-tax was made he had protested
against,it; and the nation had done so with one voice.
He considered the income tax bad in itself. It was
ridiculous to say it was anything like just and equal,
but he regretted the Hon. Member for Cuckermouth had
now brought forward his proposition; fur the question
was simply, whether they would consent to an uncomic.
tax or not; and if so, what should be its amount and
duration? He, therefore, hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would withdraw his proposition.—(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. Hume) had recently been in company with a dozen
political economists; they all differed as to the plan of
an income-tax; and was it likely that this House could
be brought to agree on such a subject?—(Hear, hear.)
He repeated that he was opposed to all property and
income tax whatever, if it was not wanted.—(Laughter.)
Why should not the national security and dignity be
kept up with the same expenditure for the next ten
years, as it had been in the past? Why should nut the
fifty-two millions of taxation, produced independently
of the income-tax, be sufficient for the national .expen-
diture, as it had been before? To maintain otherwise
was to encourage Ministers to squander the public
money.—(Hear, hear.) It was all very well to keep tip
our establishments ; but let the House look at the ut ,er
side of the question—at the sufferings of those who lied
to provide the means.—(Rear, hear.) It had been erro-
neously stated that this tax fell on the rich and tnidfile
classes. To this assertion he would oppose the authority
of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had declared, ii,
1842, that it was, in fact, a tax on the produetive classes
at large.—(Hear, hear.) Nothing but the extravaeance
of the Ministry rendered this tax necessary. It was
much better io secure the welfare and stability of our
institutions—ay, of the throne itself—by nut burdening
the people beyond their power of endurance.—(clear,
hear.) Would it not have been better in France if the
ex-King had striven to gain the affections of the people,
instead of destroying their liberties / Had he done so
he would not have been left without a friend to
help in the hour of need.—(Cheers.) We had
increased the expense of our establishments from 14 to
18 millions; the country had become more of a military
country in late years than ever.—(Hear.) Let the
House beware of increasing the national dissatisfaction.
This was no Whig arid Tory question ; all classes were
united, not so much against the property tax as against
the unnecessary weight of taxation.—(Hear.) The Le-
gislature ought immediately to address itself to this
crisis. Let not Ministers suppose they were to run on
in this course without check or control ; for the feelings
of the country were not to be trill- d with.—(Hear.)
Why should not the seven millions which had been un-
necessarily added to the taxes in the last ten years be
reduced? From 1833 to 1836 the character and honour
of the country were well maintained at a much less cost
than at present. Ministers must have known that it
had now become absolutely necessary to review the
whole system of taxation ; any man of ordinary wis
dom must have perceived that. The late Chancellor of
the Exchequer had defended the injustice of this tax
because other unjust taxes existed. He (Mi. Hume)
was prepared to prove that not a single tax existed
which was not unjust ; and was this matter of surprise,
' after the wisdom which had presided over the Exchequer
of late years ?—(Laughter.) It was new for the Howe
to declare—first, whether they would have this tax at
all ; and then, what should be its duration. Most im-
portant was it to emancipate our colonies from the taxa-
tion endured by them ; this must be done, if we would
keep them our friends. Let them govern themselves in
the cheapest way they could. He was anxious to see
both the army and ordnance reduced ; and with these
views, he would not consent to the re-imposition of this
tax for more than one year. He would not give greeter
power to any set of men, Whigs, Tories, or Radicals ;
for every one, from a king to a porter, required a check.
—(Laughter.) He would only consent to the incJme-
tax for one year, on condition of Government
undertaking to make a searching inquiry into
the expenditure, and to reduce the cost of
collecting the revenue. It was not for indi-
vidual Members to come forward with plans for this
object ; it was the duty of Ministers to do it, and it
they could show that they had reduced the burdens to
the lowest possible amount the House would not refuse
what was necessary.—(Hear.) National, like private
credit, could only be restored and maintained by re-
ducing the expenditure within the income.—(Hear.)
He would depend on no Ministerial promises or pro-
testations—let the House keep the check in its hand by
granting the tax for only one year. Should it be needed
for a longer period, let the Government sedulously ap-
ply themselves to the task of retrenchment. Rather
than lay on additional taxesat present he would call on
Ministers and all public functionaries to give up 25 per
cent. of their incomes.—(Laughter.) Yes—he would
even call on all persons having incomes above 500/.
a year to pay a like per centage, sooner than aggravate
the burdens on the people. He hoped the Hon. Member
for Cockermouth would withdraw his proposition, and
let the House go into Committee. If there were anoma-
lies,
let them remain at present ; in Committee he
should be prepared to move as an amendment that the
tax should only continue o!,e year.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, in ex-
planation,

The Marquis of GRA.NBY said there were two ways
of making up the existing deficiency of three millions—
either by reducinethe expenditure, or adding to the
taxation. Of the first he feared there was little chance
after what he had heard from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer; on the other hand, it appeared an increase
in the army and other estimates were contemplated.
Much eloquence had been expended in condemnation
of this proposal. It had been said, that foreign nations
would take alarm, and regard this increase as a hostile
demonstration. He could not conct•ive that an additional
expenditure of some 500,0001. could he so regarded.
He did not believe that Ministers would have proposed
such an increase unless they had been convinced of its
necessity; and he was disposed to confide in the
opinion of Ministers rather than that of the Hen.
Member for the West Riding. He was sensibly
alive to the advantages of peace, and hoped that
the tranquillity which had continued for thirty
years would not now be broken. The announcement of
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, the other
evening, that this country was determined not to
interfere with respect to the Government of a neigh-
bouring country, left him little doubt on the matter; and
he thought that the good sense and moderation of other
countries would see in that course an example which
they would be capable of appreciating. It there was no
means of making the expenditure and the income meet