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

WAYS AND MEANS.

The question having been put,
Mr. lIUME again rose for a moment, and said that it
was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on
his proposition.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
rose and said, that from some of the observations of the
Hon. Gentleman he derived this comfort, at all events,
via , to find that he had stated that he wished to pre-
serve the credit of the country. Now, it was precisely
with a view to the maintenance of public credit as
well as the character of that House, that he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) called upon them to
sustain the proposition of her Majesty's Government,
and to reject that of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Thu words iii the resolution certainly specified a limited
period, with reference to the duration of the tax pro-
posed; but he had stated on a former occasion, and he
now repeated, that, at the proper time, the Government
would propose that that limited term should be a period
of three years; so that he trusted that the House would,
in reference to the present proposal, clearly under-
stand that the question before them for decision was,
whether the present income-tax should now be voted for
a period of three years, or for a period of one year.—
(Hear, hear.) He had already stated that when they
(the Government) had to consider the financial proposals
for the year, they did consider themselves bound to
make, if possible, the proposed income for the year equal
to the proposed expenditure. They had proposed to do
that by a continuation of the existing income-tax for a
limited period, accompanied by a proposal to add an ad-
ditional two per cent. to it for a period of two years,
thinking that, by the addition of that amount for two
years, they should be enabled, at the end of that term,
to part without difficulty with that increase in the tax.
On that point the House had, however, almost unani-
mously said that they could not agree to the proposal
made to them, and even the Hon. Member for Montrose
admitted that it was on good grounds that they had
abandoned that part of their financial policy. Ot
course it was for the Government to consider whether
it was advisable to propose some other tax to supply the
place of the portion they had abandoned; but he
Lthe Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that
the increase in the expenditure was temporary, and
therefore ought to be met by a temporary tax, and he
did not think that it would be advisable to add a per-
centage on the indirect taxation of the country—on the
assessed taxes, or on the window duties; and he still re-
mained of opinion that the best course, and the one
that would have been likely to have, less than any other,
interfered with their trade and commerce, would have
been to have submitted to an additional two per cent.
income-tax for a limited time. The first subject, how-
ever, to which, after the refusal of that proposition, they
had turned their attention was the consideration of the
state of the balances in the Exchequer. Now, he had
stated, on a former occasion, what were the balances in
the Exchequer for a term of 3 ears past, and that in
April next the amount of those balances would be about
7,000,0001.; supposing, therefore, that they should be
reduced by 1 500,000/., they would still amount to
5,500,0001. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
seemed to think that it was an extraordinary thing not
to provide income within the year for the expenditure
for the same year; in the budget of 1842, however,
there was announced a probable deficiency of
I.3oo,oool.—though the actual deficiency turned
out to be not more than 2,000,0001.—and by the means
of the income-tax proposed by the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) the income, in the course, not of
that year, but of two years, exceeded the expenditure.
But it was impossible to do this within a given period of
one year. He did believe, however, that—looking at
the probable increase in their income, and looking at
that reduction of expenditure which it was possible might
be effected in the course of two or three years—it was
very possible that the average income of the next three
years would equal the average expenditure.—(Hear,
hear.) But this he would say, that it that House, hav-
ing refused the proposition offered with a view to make
the income equal the expenditure within the year,
should refuse also that which was proposed with the ob-
ject of doing it within the time for which the present tax
was asked of the House, then that House itself would
have taken the first step towards repudiation, and
towards the injury of the credit of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) Suffering as the country had done
under the infliction of a great calamity, and smarting,
as it had been, under severe commercial distress, he
was not surprised that it should have refused to sub-
mit to an additional impost, even for a time—though,
be confessed, he still thought the country was wrong in
such refusal—yet, he must say, that they (the House o
Commons) were bound to provide the existing revenue
for an adequate period, to make up for any deficiency
that existed.—(Hear, hear.) It was quite true that the
Members at the present moment holding seats in that
House might not be the same who had voted the income-
tax on two occasions already; but surely they all owed
something to the character of this House, and he did
think that, independently of other considerations of
equal importance, that they could not look at the pre-
sent state of affairs around them, or consider the course
which a large majority of the House had on former
occasions adopted, without coming to the conclusion that
it would not be consistent on the part of that House to
refuse to agree to the present proposal.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman (who spoke throughout
amidst mrteh noise on the part of the . House)
then referred to the speech of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Temworth, on introducing