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

they should refer to the general taxation, the pressure
of which should be made to bear equally unon every de-
scription of property fairly and equitably-. H s would not
p further into the question. ; but he hoped that his
Hon. Friend would withdraw his proposal, and allow the
House to proceed to the main business of the evening,
and to decide the question whether they were to have
an income•tax or not. The other question that had
been mooted, as to whether the period should be limited
t° one year, would arise when the House considered the
resolution in Committee ; but he must again ask his
!sfon. Friend whether after the disposition which the
Rouse had manifested with respect to his proposition, be
would not withdraw it, and thereby enable the Govern-
ment to bring to a conclusion a question respecting
which the whole country was at present in a state of
uncertainty.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr• F. T. BARING would detain the House a very
short time whilst he stated his views on the question.
The proposition before the House was one of great im-
portance. He did not agree in the suggestion of the
tt..°ll. Member for Montrose, and his objection to it was,
'cause he considered it necessary that five millions and
half should be supplied by taxation, and he did not
think it could be raised if the income-tax were to be
nlapressed. What he understood the Hon. Member for
the tax on a fairer footing than that upon which it was
now levied before they consented to go into Committee.
Re concurred in that proposal. The Hon. Member did
not ask the House to diminish the amount of the tax.
All he asked for was, that it should be levied in a fairer
manner than it now was. If the House should be of opi-
a:on that the tax could not be levied more fairly than it
oea- was, then the only course left for him would be to
suPport the revenue by voting for the tax in its present
and worst shape. For what would be worse than the tax
,w,?tild be a deficiency in the revenue.—(Hear.) He said
without having had any previous knowledge of what
the Ron. Member for Cockermouth was about to pro-
Pose. All ho thought of the matter was that it was a
IPreetical method of taking the opinion of the House
I
Pen the tax. If the House should be of opinion that it
was not practicable to adjust the tax so as to make it
'4ll more fairly, ho did nut think the Committee could
effect that object, and consequently there would be an
end to all efforts for making the burden fall equally on
".l Classes. But when the Hon. Member for Montrose
ePPosed the continuance of the tax because he thought
the expenditure could be reduced, he (Mr. Baring) seas
as much disposed to distrust the Hon. Member's pro
PhecY as he himself had been to trust the prophecies of
?them
Everybody admitted that the tax was unequal
1 its pressure. He would not go into the details of
that inequality; but be confessed that when it was pro-
Posed by the Honourable Member for Montrose to limit
the tax to one year, he looked with great alarm at
; Plan by which so large an amount of re-
venue 'would be placed on so unsafe a footing.
And that fear was one of the grounds on which he bad
(1)11:41h:tally opposed the income-tax. He had not changed
t. 14 opinion on the subject. He always thought the
time would come when the tax would become unpopular,
and he also had anticipated a great inconvenience to the
laerenue when the outcry against the income-tax should
ec° me general. The Right Hon. Member for Coventry
had
expressed a desire to see the revenue placed on a
stable foundation. He (Mr. Baring) concurred in that
~.
"Leh, but for that very reason he should vote for the
Proposition of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth. It
it was intended to perpetuate the tax, the Government
must make it more equitable and equal. The leading
~s -",00 of the various parties in the House appeared to be
°L opinion that the tax, if continued, must remain' as it
,w 1,411. He looked with great discomfort at the result of
ss‘e night's proceedings. For, if the tax must be con-
ned in its present unjust form—be might be mistaken
--but he warned the Right Hon. Gentleman that the Go
:?rbotient would only be postponing its difficulties, and that
It they now got the tax again for three years they must
make a, change in it at the end of that time, or else
abandon it. The Government ought, at least, to try to
make it fairer, even if they despaired of making it
Perfect.—(Hear.) It was in vain that his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him the
Plan of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth was not
perfect.—(Hear, hear.) It was true that the proposal
before the House was not without its faults, nor did he
mean to commit himself to its details in all their, rigour.
lint Putting that consideration aside, it was the impera-
tiy
e duty of the House to devise the means of making
the tax fairer.—(Hear, hear.) The straightforward
iroulon sense of the people would not be !satisfied with
eas.--(llear, bear.) There would always be anomalies
Ina classified taxation, but that formed no just reason
Why an effort to equalise the tax should not be made;
d if the Government set about the task he was con-
need they would be met by the whole country in the
ante spirit, and that there would be little or no
dlssatlsfaction at the continuance of the tax. With
taPect to an argument of the Right Honourable
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn). he must
45Y that he did not think there would be
)1:11 breach of faith towards the fundholder in taxing
according to the proposition before the House.
The only injustice would be in taxing him alone —in not
at the same time taxing the other portions of the com-
munity. If the House rejected the proposition of the
that Member for Cockermouth he should not vote for
414 of the Hon. Member for Montrose ; but he should
deemthe tux with all its present odium.—(Hear.)
!dr. MUNTZ said the Right lion. Member for Ports-
mouth had done a great kindness to himself and his
country by the speech he had just made. lie (Mr.
ik,tuntz) had received a letter from one of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's constituents, expressing surprise at his
4'declaration that he had been satisfied with the with
;draws] uf the additional 2 per cent. on the income-tax.
The last time he had spokeu on the subject he recom
mended Ministers to make the tax more palatable, and
the Right lion. Member for Portsmouth had made some
very just observations to the same effect. If the Govern-
ment refused to do so, they would not carry the people
With them. There ought to be a tax on real property,
levied on a different principle to that on incomes de-
rived from personal labour. The question, however,
for
present decision was, whether to adopt the proposi-
'Ml before the House. He was of opinion that the in-
quisitorial injustice of the tax would not thereby be gut
ttd„,,of, and he should therefore vote against it.
hi
r, r. J. WALTER rose amidst loud cries of " Divide."
Ile would not stop to inquire whether the corn-laws,
the currency, or the French revolution were, as had been
4rgued during the debate, the cause of the present posi-
tl°ll, of the revenue.—(Cries of " Divide.") The Chan-
rf, of the Exchequer had failed in making out a case
,"r
the continuance of the tax. On the contrary, he had
proved
it to be unjustifiable. He (Mr. W alter) had
oPed the Right Hon. Gentleman would have taken some
tger time, in order to devise a tax more equitable than
income-tax. But it seemed to him pis if the more
°PPressive the tax, the more eligible and pleasant it was
for. the Ministry to propose and defend. He might say
the income-tax what the moralist had so aptly said of
of
" Was a monster of such hideous mien,
That to be hated needs but to be seen;
,„s.But seen too oft—familiar with its face,
St 'Ye first endure—then pity—then embrace."
an income-tax was required to maintain the credit of
theeicountry, at least it ought to be levied on fair princi
11)14.---(" Divide, divide," and confusion.)
,o,as G. ROBINSON rose, amidst a prolonged 4. Ohl"
hutch lasted some minutes. He would not detain the
;1-11use long. lie recommended the Government to ac-
:pt the proposal of the Hon. Member for Montrose, and
lee to take the income-tax for one year certain, with
ss-seogagement to enter into an inquiry as to the best
r„. Cheapest mode of raising the revenue, with the least
t"„e°lavenience and injury to the commerce and manufac-
iOra of the country. He would tell the Government
three
persisted in their proposal to take the tax for
years they would drag with them many Members
;`,.110 were unwilling to vote against them, and who would
....",reby forfeit their popularity with their constituencies,
r-V he placed for the future in a precarious situation.—
seaear, and laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that from the solemn manner
40 which the Hon. Members who spoke last had ad•
dressedil the House and the Government, he thought
the
called upon to make some reply to them and to
110 e. Member for Montrose. His lion. Friend (Mr.
urne) had noticed the diversity of opinion which existed-'
4tti that House as to the income-tax, and he had stated
ssat. amongst twelve political economists who were
Z",eustomed to reason on such subjects, there was not
ae of them who did not differ with his fellows on the
rbociples of taxation. If the fact was as his Honour-
se Friend had stated, there could be, a fortiori,
'0 Wonder felt that those not accustomed to reason
00 such subjects should differ even more than the
Itlen. Member's friends had done on the question of
laZation.—(Laughter.) He did not look on the propos
tion of the Hon. Member to be one to which the
IGovernment could give its concurrence. He would state
nthe House what the position of the Ministers was.
ie the year 1842 Parliament agreed to impose an
,i:°1110-tax, for the double purpose of supplying a defis
14.119 Y which existed in the revenue, and of enabling the
certain
to try an experiment whether the removal of
.vrPtin duties would not improve the revenue, by giving
iresh
spring to commerce. Both of those objects
were fulfilled most amply, the deficiency of the income
itell,aellaade up, and the revenue increased in consequence
„zt sue remission of duties producing a great influx of
thtnrliodities. The Government in 1845 again renewed
ee income-tax, taking off at the same time a large
amount of customs duties and excise on articles of con-
trsi'Ptuan. In the two epochs no less than 7,000,0001. of
and duties were remitted. Since that
pi.113(1 the country had not enjoyed the same
vve-sPeritY—adverse circumstances bad occurred which
tunes
totally independent of the remission of taxes and
tio`'ties in 1845. The revenue arising from the consurap-
eau) of malt and spirits fell off in one year to the
ead:rttt of 1,300,0001. The question now was, whether
net these circumstances, the Government might
tea, very fairly and reasonably propose the re-
yea et of the income tax fur another period of three
notra, The Hon. Member for Montrose said he could
tharaumit of the reasons for renewing the tax, because
tlse'e might be reductions effected in the expenditure of
ariticoutstry by reducing tie establishments of the army
sairtta.v.Y. Te Hoourable Member for
could not
stated his opinnion to be that those establish gments
tkx doot safely be reduced, but that some other mode of
of tlit°Tl,might be proposed. With respect to the opinion
'few Honourable Member for Montrose, without ad-
tot ing more particularly to facts which were sufficiently
earious, he would only observe that the Government
1141 ant asked for more than was granted is the year
°out. When the greatest tranquillity prevailed on the
the 'tient. Such being the fact, he did not think, in
be Present state of Europe, that large reductions could
eeorade,.--(Hear hear.) He was glad to hear such an
henor the sentiments of the House—because he
%°plortednt thaott be quite unnecessary to say more upon this
merely to refer to what the newspapers daily
respecting the state of the various countries
—(Hear, hear.) Bat the Honourable Member