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

7

i

enamoured of it. He thought it was a tax that should
be reserved for a time of war. The House of Commons,
however, assented to it, and the country accepted it with
a greater acquiescence than he oould have expected, in
order to give the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel)
an opportunity of proceeding with his commercial
t-eforms. If that course was found necessary in 1845, it
!vas much more so at the present period. It had been
said that the reduction of duties effected by the Right
lion. Baronet had proved a failure. His (Mr. Labou-
ehere's) conviction was of a different kind, and he
firmly believed that if the springs of industry had not
been relaxed by the measures alluded to, the country
Would now be in] a worse position than it was.
--(Hear, hear.) He thought the country had reason to
rejoice, that in consequence of them, British commerce
bad been enabled to supply the unfortunate calamities
which a deficiency of food had brought upon it. He should
look upon it as a most unfortunate circumstance if the
House were to agree to the motion of his lion. Friend,
end limit the income tax to a year. It would be both
false economy and false policy, to take any step which
should have the effect of giving a shock to the credit of
the country. Aud he could net disguise his apprehen-
sion that the House, in assenting to the proposition of
his Hon. Friend, would give a great blow to commerce
'And to the credit of the country both at home and abroad.
lie hoped that peace would be preserved both at home
and abroad, but lookine to the circumstances of the
times, it was most desirable, whatever Minister the House
Might choose to have, that the credit of the country
should be sustained, and that union should exist amongst
all parties upon this point. Let them cut down all unne-
cessary expenses, but let the honour, character and
credit of the country be upheld at all events.—(llcar.)
It was desirable that their system of taxation should be
revised; but let them not, under present circumstances.
throw thins into confusion in the hope that something
blight come from it. Such conduct would be an unpar-
donable error in the House. The Hon. Gentleman had
spoken of the prostrate position and fallen condition of
the country. It was true they were suff Ting from the
effects of a great calamity; but he denied that there was
anything in the state of the country to inspire them with
despondency.—(hear.) He believed it only required
time, peace at home and abroad, union and political
tratquillity, to make this country spring forward in the
race, of prosperity ; and all calamities would pass
away like clouds. Let them not judge of their pro-
gress in prosperity by a single year, but let them judge
Of it by periods of twenty years. He would read for
the House a comparative statement which had been
drawn up by officials in the Board of Trade, of the
Wealth of the country as shown by the income-tax in
1815, and as shown by the returns of 1842. The result
Would show how greatly the country increased in pros-
perity during the interval; and it should be recollected
Ist the same time that in the year 1815, all incomes above
'SO/. a year were taken into calculation with a depre-
ciated currency, whilst in 1842 all incomes under 1501.
were exempted, with an appreciated currency. Tinder
schedule A, including real property, the amount rated to
the income-tax for 1814-15 was 60,000,0001.; in 1842 3
it was 91,0e0,003/ tinder schedule B, including
the occupiers of land, &c., the return for 1814-15
was 38,000,000 L; in 1842-3, it was 43,000,0001. Under
schedule C, including the public funds, the return for
1814-15 was 31,000,0001 ; in 1842 it was 27,000,000/.
Under schedule D. including trades and professions, the
return for 1814-15 was 35,886,0001.; in 1842 3, it
Was 64,344,0001. In schedule E, including sale-
Ill's, the amount, in 1542.43, was considerably
diminished—a fact to which he begged to direct the
attention of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.
the amount rated under the head of salaries to the
income-tax, for 1814-15, was 13,642,0001.; in 1842 3 it
Ivls 10,195,0001. The result of the whole was, that in 1815
the amount rated to the income-tax was 179,000,0001.; in
1842 it Was 240,000,000/. It was impossible to give a
inure striking and satisfactory proof of the steady in-
Crease of the wealth and prosperity of the country.—
(Hear.) Since 1815 taxes to the amount of 53 millions
had been reduced, and others to the amount of
13,782,000/. had been imposed, leaving a balance of
More than 39,770,000/. If they were not enabled to
make the revenue cover the expenses of the year, they
were resolved that upon an average of years there
Should be a probable expectation that the income would
tqual the expenditure. No man could predict with cer-
tainty with respect to future expenditure and income.
All he could say was, that the Government in submit-
ting their financial proposition to the House, had asked
for as little taxation as was consistent with the efficiency
of the public service of the country, and he hoped the
House would not disturb the credit of the country by
assenting to the proposition of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. OSBORNE said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down, had said but little in support of
the income-tax, but that might be expected, when it was
known that the Right Hun. Gentleman had said on a
former occasion that " he never met with a statesman or
any man experienced in political affairs, who did not
declare that the imposition of such a tax was most ob-
jectionable, and above all to be avoided in time of peace,
and that before having recourse to such a scheme of
taxation he must exhaust every other."—(Hear, hear.)
Why had not the Right Hon. Gentleman exhausted every
other scheme of taxation, and why did he not support
the motion of the lion. Member for Cockermouth (Mr.
tlorsman)? But the Right lion. Gentleman supported
the motion brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, now a member of the Government, which had
somewhat a similar object in view.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he did not vote for it.

Mr. OSBORNE—The Right Hon. Gentleman did no'
'vote for it, but he did not vote against it. He was o
Opinion that the tax ought to be rendered more equal,
and though they might not be able to arrive at mathe-
matical accuracy, that was no reason why they should
not endeavour to render it more' palateable to the people,
The Right Hon. Genth man the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer quoted the authority of Mr. Pitt, but it should
be recollected that when Mr. Pitt imposed the income-
tax the country was engaged in a war for her existence.
When the renewal of this tax was proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) made
the following motion:—" That, considering the various
means of supplying the present deficiency, it is the opi-
nion of the House that the renewal of a tax inquisitorial
in its character, unequal in its pressure, and hitherto
considered exclusively as the financial reserve of the
nation in time of war, is not called for by the public ne-
cessities, and is not, therefore, advisable."—(hear.) He
did not think that there was any greater necessity for
this tax now than when the Noble Lord made this motion,
In 1816 the House of Commous refused an income-tax
by a majority of 37, and the public credit was not
shaken, nor did Ministers resign in consequence. But
in 1842 the Right Hon. Baronet smuggled the income-
tax through the House, and promised that the amount of
the tax would be made up by the saving which would
result from the commercial measure's which he proposed.
Re (Mr. Osborne) never yet saw the person who said
that he effected any such saving.—(Hear.) He'denied that
he had a right to look to the exigencies of the State
alone in imposing taxes; they must also look to tha
exigencies and wants of the people, and he believed
there never was a time when the people were less able to
bear a tax, not of five per cent., but of three per cent.--
(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Coventry (Mr. Ellice) said that the income-tax did not
affect the poor. Ho denied that. It was well known
that it induced all persons to curtail their expenses. The
poorer classes were beginning to comprehend that, and
they were therefore determined to oppose It. The
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War,
in 1842, and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir. R. Peel), in
1333, admitted this. He thought the whole question
of taxation should be referred to a Committee,
instead of the current expenditure, which was a dan-
gerous precedent. He thought the time was come when
the people of this country would insist on cheap
government, and would not tolerate the system of ne-
potism by which the members of the aristocracy were
provided for in their public offices. In 1842 the Noble
Lord said he saw
,no reason why a legacy duty should
not be imposed on real property in preference to the in-
come-tax. But now not one Member of of the Govern-
ment said a word on this subject. He was sorry the
Honourable Member for Manchester had withdrawn his
motion on this subject, because, if there was any time
more appropriate for bringing it forward than another,
it was the present.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Letrd in
1842 also recommended a tax on four-wheeled car-
riag PS and horses, from all which he calculated a revenue
of 2.500,0001. He did not 'know how the Noble Lord
could come down to propose a tax which he had so
much denounced in 1842. It was stated that the Irish
Members would vote for the imposition of this tax. lie
should be surprised if they were so blind to their own
interests and to the consequence of their votes if'
they gave them in favour of the tax.—(Oh.) The
Hon. Gentleman who cried "Oh" showed that he had
already made up his mind to vote for it. But he
begged to remind him and other Irish Members that the
great leader of the Irish pecple, who was now no more,
expressed himself strongly against this tax. He said,
" In proposing the income-tax, you are proposing what
is unjust to the people of England, and, therefore, I will
give such a proposition all the opposition in my power."
Another authority of no less weight, still living, and a
Member of the Government, said, "That of all imposi-
tions which a perverse ingenuity could devise the in-
c une-tex was the worst—a tax most repugnant to the
interests, abhorrent to the religious sentiments, and re-
volting to the moral senee of the people of England.—
(Laughter, and cries of " Name.") It was no less a
person than the distinguished Member fur Dungarvan
who used these words.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Os-
borne) fully participated in the sentiments of the Right
Ron. Gentleman, and if the Members from Ireland sup-
ported the infliction and perpetuation of this manifest
and revolting injustice on their English brethren, he
believed the time had arrived when it should also be im-
posed on the sister kingdom.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL—I think, Sir, that it is important in
considering the question, whether the income-tax shall
now, be continued for three years, that we should not
exclude altogether from our consideration the circum-
stances under which that tax was imposed in 1842, and
renewed in the year 1845 ; and I feel it incumbent upon
me, after the reflections which have been cast upon the
tax itself, and upon the motives and conduct of those by
whom it was imposed, to vindicate from the aspersions
of opponents the Government by which this tax was
proposed to Parliament, and the House of Commons
which, by immense majorities, consented to its original
imposition.—(Hear.) If, Sir, they believe all they have
heard, this House of Commons, or rather those Mem-
bers of it who had no place in the last Parliament, can-
not but have formed a strange opinion of the conduct of
their predecessors, and must be filled with surprise and
astonishment that it was possible for any Minister to
have persuaded a Legislature to consent to the imposi-
tion of the tax we are discussing. The Hon. Member
who spoke last says the tax was " smuggled " through
Parliament. Smuggled through Parliament ! Smuggle
an income-tax imposir.g a burden of five millions on
the people ! Smuggled through Parliament !---If you
--the House of Commons—are ashamed of the vote by

which this tix was passed, rescind it ! If new events 7
have occurred convincing you that the policy was wrong
alter the policy ; it must always be wise to accept the
guidance of experience ; it must always be absurd to
maintain a system which occurrences proves unsound.
But it is a gross reflection upon the late House of Com-
mons to insinuate, as has been done this night, that this
measure was "smuggled" through Parliament, and it is
an equally injurious imputation upon those who imposed
the tax to say that they concealed the real motives of
their conduct !--(Hear.) By overwhelming majorities
the tax was assented to. An Honourable Member (the
Member for Finsbury) told us the other night that he
was " fascinated " into supporting it. —(A laugh.) A
Representative of a large and important constituency,
makes the humiliating avowal that he allowed a tax im-
posing a burden of five millions upon the people of Eng-
land to pass this House, not because of his deliberate
conviction of its justice and propriety, but because he was
" fascinated" into supporting it.—(Laughter.) Another
Hon. Member says it was " smuggled " through the
House. Why did you permit it ? Can it be possible
that Members of large constituencies allowed so im
portant a treasure to pass in such a manner ? Sir, on
their behalf, I repel the imputation. I conceive that
there never was an imputation more ill founded. I be-
lieve that there were great and important considerations
of financial and commercial policy which induced you to
assent to this tax, in place of increasing the indirect
taxation of the country. Let me review what occurred.
I was appointed to office in 1841. in what lam about
to say, I appear to draw any invidious contrast between
the late and the present Government, let me at once
disclaim any intention of so doing.—(Hear, hear.) One
of my motives fur giving my support to this measure is,
because of the great difliculties of the position in which
the Government are placed. That is one of my motives
fur supporting the measure. But, in vindication of the
late House of Commons, I must state what is the truth. I
will endeavour to make that statement from memory, with-
out troubling the House by referring to statistics. In 1841
the Government with which I was connected succeeded
to power. There was a deficit in the revenue. It was
not an occasional and casual deficit. In 1838, if I re-
collect rightly, there had been a deficiency of 1,500,000/.
In 1839 there was a deficiency of half a million. In
1840 a further deficiency of 1,500,000/. In 1841 the
deficiency amounted to no less than 2,400,0001. My
estimate in 1842 was, that if no great effort were made,
and if the estimates were to be continued at the same
rate until 1843, mytestimate was that wo should have in '
that year a further deficiency of 2,600,0001. On the sth
of April in that year, if my calculations were correct,
wo should have had an accumulation of deficit amounting
to no less than ten millions sterling money I. That was
the financial condition of the country ! What had taken
place ? The House of Commons, when they assented
to a fiscal alteration, which could not be resisted except
on fiscal considerations--the House of Commons, when
they assented to an alteration of the Post-office duties, pro-
fessed a fixed determination to support the public credit.
They declared that there should be no deficiency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fulfilment of that
pledge, had proposed to Parliament an addition of 5
per cent. upon the Customs and Excise duties, and had
proposed that 10 per cent. should be added to the
assessed taxes. What had been the result of these addi-
tions to the general taxation? If I recollect rightly, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the 5 per
cent. added to the Customs and Excise duties would pro-
duce about 1,900,000/. The actual income was, on the
most favourable calculation, not more than 700,0001.
Consequently there was a deficiency, comparing the esti-
mate with the proceeds, of not less than 1,300,000/. But
what had taken place as regarded the addition to the
assessed taxes? The estimate was, that 262,000/. would
he the produce of the 10 per cent. additional taxation
upon this branch; but the actual produce was 300,000/.
There consequently was evidence that indirect taxation
had reached its limit, whilst direct taxation could bear a
further impost. I ask, then, was it the more wise in 1842
to resort to direct taxation to supply our deficiencies, or
to seek for a renewal of indirect taxes, such as the reim-
position of the duties upon salt and leather, and other
articles of general consumption? On that financial ground
—guided by that great financial consideration—the House
took the view that the income- tax was advisable. That
tax was not " smuggled " through the House. It was
assented to after long debates, after strenuous opposition,
upon the firm conviction that indirect taxation offered
no opportunities of supplying the deficiency equal to the
opportunity resulting from the imposition of that tax.—
(Loud cheers.) But I have said that there were also
commercial considerations which swayed the House.
What was the commercial position of the country ?
There existed a complete prohibition on the importation
of those animals which formed part of the means of
human subsistence. Not a cow, not a sheep, not a bul-
...

lock could be admitted! But this was not all. On bacon
there was a duty of 11. Bs. per cwt.; on hams, 11. Bs. per
cwt.; on rice, a duty of 7s. a quarter; on salted pork, a
duty of 12s. a barrel; on salted beef the same; nay, there
was even a duty of 2s. a cwt. on potatoes, and well I
remember that when I proposed to reduce that duty
there were the greatest remonstrances from the growers
of the root, and the loudest prophecies of total ruin to
all the districts in which it was cultivated!—(Hear,
and cheers.) But, to go beyond this, what was the
state of the corn-law at that time? If the price of
wheat was 675. Ild. a quarter, a duty was imposed of
18s. Bd.; if the price was 635. I Id., the duty was
1/. 3s. Bd.; if it was 625. 1 ld., there was a duty of
1/. 4s. 11d. I greatly modified all these duties. I proposed
also to remove all prohibitions upon the admission of
other classes of articles, and to permit their importation
at certain specified rates. I proposed to admit all raw
materials at rates of duty not exceeding five per cent.;
to admit all goods partially manufactured at rates not
exceeding twelve per cent.; and all goods wholly manu-
factured I proposed to admit at rates not exceeding
twenty per cent. Those propositions were acceded to
after repeated discussions. To supply the deficiency
thus created in the revenue, I proposed an income-tax
to last until 1845. In that year it would have expired
in the ordinary course of things. But, looking now at
the events of that year I beg to recal to the recollection of
the House what was the statement I then made. I told
the House that in that year there would be a surplus
revenue amounting to five millions. I stated that if they
allowed the income-tax to expire there would be in 1846

a surplus of 2,600,000/. I stated at the same time that
in the opinion of her Majesty's Government it was
advisable to add greatly to our naval estimates. The
progress of steam navigation—the impossibility of re-
pairing our steam-vessels in the Channel—the unfitness
of our ports for steam navigation—rendered it in our
opinion advisable to lay the foundation of those works
which have since been carried on. We thought
it also advisable to add to the number of our men in the
navy. I stated that to the House before I asked them
to renew the income-tax. I told them that it was open
to them either to abandon the income-tax or to retain it,
dispensing with duties upon other articles. I said, it
you retain the tax you will have a surplus of 3,600,000/. I
asked, in what manner will you apply that surplus ? I
entreated the House seriously to consider whether or no
they were prepared to repeal the income-tax, or, retain-
ing that tax, to repeal the excise duties on glass, &c.,
and to make an alteration of the sugar duties. So far
from taking the House by surprise those propositions
were fully submitted to their consideration. The Howe
affirmed the increase of the estimates ; they affirmed
the renewal of the income-tax ; they affirmed the re-
peal of taxes which involved a gross loss of two mil-
lions to the revenue ; a loss of 600,0001. on glass, of
680,0001. on cotton, of 300,000/. upon the auction duty,
together with other items, making a total loss to the
revenue, which it was impossible to recover by any indi-
rect taxation of the same sort, to the extent of not less
than two millions at the least. It was with a full cognisance
of all these facts that the House of Commons consented
to the scheme. Now, it has been said that I concealed
the real objects with which I made those propositions.
—(Hear, hear.) It has been said, that addressing
myself subsequently to a body of merchants in a distant
town, the subjects of another country, I made a decla-
ration at variance with my then expressed opinions.—
(Ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Why, I utterly
deny it.—(Ministerial cheers.) Why, I have seen in
the newspapers a letter purporting to be written by me,
which, in the first place, appeared to have been a
German translation of what I did write, and then an
English re-translation of the
.German edition.—(Laughter
and cheers.) lam little desirous to repel these attacks;
I care little about them; but here is the letter I really
did write, which is that I apprehend by which I am
bound. " The property-tax was intended"—that is not
the commencement of the letter, but I suppose I need
not read what does not refer to the subject. I re-
ceived an address from these gentlemen, and I wrote to
thank them for it. After expressing my thanks, I pro-
ceeded—

The property-tax was intended not merely to supply
a deficit in the revenue as compared with the public ex-
penditure, but to lay the foundation of juster principles
of taxation, to afford means for repealing duties on the
raw materials of important manufactures, for exempting
useful branches of domestic industry from vexatious re-
gulations of excise, and for remitting taxation from
several articles imported from abroad which are essential
to the comfort and enjoyment of the industrious classes
of the country."
That was what I wrote—(hear, hear); and I beg to ask
if that was not in direct coincidence with all I had ever
declared, and if I was not fully justified in saying that
my object was to " lay the foundation of juster principles
of taxation ?"—(Cheers.) There were 1,200 articles of
consumption subject to duties which led to restrictions
and regulations much more onerous even than the taxes
themselves. On 700 of those articles the duties were re-
duced, and on 500 they were entirely repealed. Was
not that the foundation of a great commercial change ?
If you say to me, " You did not use words to that effect
in this house," I reply that the very words of the letter
are identical with words which I used in debate. On the
23d of March, 1842, an intimation having been thrown
out that the Government were not in earnest in proposing
the change, and that I had not asserted or implied that
the Government staked their existence upon the success
of their measures--en the 23d of March, 1842, I used
the following 7.ords in debate :—" I propose this as a
measure which involves the fate of the Government. To
have made such a declaration appears to me scarcely
necessary. I do propose it—l speak not of minor de-
tails, but of :the measure itself—as the basis of the
financial and commercial policy of this country—
(Loud cries of " Near, hear.") Well, there is a dif-
ference certainly between " basis " and " foundation." I
leave you to make the most of it—
"—and as a measure which I never could have consented
to propose if I did not manifest my conviction of its
necessity by risking my fate as a Minister on it. The
more I consider the subject the more deeply am I con.
vineed that this measure, and the measures which ac-
company it, are necessary for the welfare of the country."
Those are the exact expressions which I used in 1842.
I did then certainly express a strong doubt if it would
not be better to continue the tax for five years rather
than for three, but I expressed a sanguine hope that at
.he end of five years it would be possible to repeal it.
And when 1845 came my anticipations were realised, for

I was able to show you in that year that there was a
surplus of s,ooo,oool.—that the buoyancy of the revenue
was such as nearly to supply the void which had pre-
viously existed, and that it was then in your power, had
you so pleased, to have repealed the tax, instead of
you
a measure for the isierease of the estimates and
the remission of duties upon other articles. It
was with a full knowledge of all these facts
that the House consented in 1845 to a revival
of the tax of 1842. Now if the House regret
this, as I said before, I must obviously con-
cede their right to express that regret, and to
take a different course, but I do not want to shelter
myself under their authority. So long as I lire I shall
never repent that I proposed this alteration in the com-
mercial policy of the country—(Cheers)—and induced
the House of Commons, not by fascination, not by
smuggling, but by a full and explicit statement of facts,
to impose and continue the direct tax in question, in lieu
of the repealed and reduced taxes to which I have re-
ferred.—(Hear, hear.) I have made this statement in
justice to those who, however they fell off from me in
1846—(Laughter)—were my cordial supporters in 1845.
—(Hear, hear.) There is nothing further from my wish
than to revive any of the discussions of 1846; but we
must draw a clear line of distinction between the com-
mercial line of policy of 1845 and that of 1846. Now,
there were some predictions made at the time of the in-
come-tax being proposed which it is not immaterial to
recall. We were told that the substitution of direct fur
indirect taxation to the extent which I proposed was most
unwise, and that, though we might receive a large sum
as income-tax, we should find a material counterbalance
in the falling off in other taxes, as, for example, in the
assessed taxes. Now such has not been the case. In
1842, before the direct tax, the income-tax, was imposed
there was received of assessed taxes 4,190,0001. In
1847, after the several years' collection of the direct tax,
the income-tax, there were received, of assessed taxes,
4,334,000/., so that so far from there being a falling off
in assessed taxes on account of the simultaneous imposi-
tion of the income-tax, there was an increase of consi-
derably more than 100,000/.—(Hear, hear.) In 1842
and 1845, I meant to lay down no principle with refer-
ence to the proportion which direct taxation should bear
to indirect taxation ; I_ simply said then, as I say now,
that I thought the impossibility of 3 per cent., on the
income of the country, as a substitute for the taxes
repealed or reduced, on articles of subsistence, on the
raw materials of manufactures, or articles which pecu-
liarly lead to smuggling, woud be a beneficial substi-
tute.—(Hear, hear.) lam quite aware that there are
limits to the imposition of direct taxation.—(Hear,
hear.) Ido not agree with those who would substi-
tute direct for indirect taxation as a general principle.
—(Hear, hear.) In times of peace lam not at all pre-
pared to say that I could wish—except for special and
temporary purposes—to carry direct taxation to any
much greater extent than we have now carried it.—
(Hear,: hear.) I am quite ready to admit that there
are great evils accompanying direct taxation. There is
a strong inducement, no doubt, in evil times, to derive
revenue from direct rather than from indirect
taxation—(Hear, hear)—but I am not prepared
to assent to any general rule for the substitution, though
it is one accordant, I believe, with the opinions of very
many Members of this House.—(Hear, hear.) I admit
that there are many cases of individual hardship under
the income-tax, as there are under every tax that is
raised, but I do not admit the hardship of the principle
upon which we now proceed.--(Hear, hear.) I think
the tax ought to be distinctly a tax upon income. If, in-
deed, you wanted to make some great national effort,
for some distinct national purpose, then you might ap-
ply to capital. If you wanted, for example, by a great
national effort, to pay off all, or a part of the national
debt—l do not say this were a desirable effort—but if you
desired to make it, then you must apply to realised capital;
but I am now speaking of annual exertions to meet an-
nual demands, and the direct tax towards these an-
nual demands, I say, after long consideration of the
subject, ought to be an income-tax, without any dis-
tinction between the different sources whence it is
derived.—(Hear, hear.) I would never consent to re-
lieve incomes derived from trade, or incomes derived
from prefessions, for the purpose of throwing an in
vidious, and, as I think, unjust, burden on what is
called realised property.—(Rear, hear.) The taxes
which had been repealed or reduced, fell, eertainly, as
heavily upon the tradesman and upon the professional
man, as upon the owner of realised property. There
is no distinction made between these various classes in
the duties upon articles of luxury, in the window du-
ties, in the assessed taxes; why, as to the income-tax,
are you to throw the whole or main onus upon real
property? To say nothing of the pledged faith we
owe to funded property, every reason of policy is
against the oppressing that class of property with a
heavier share of taxation than is called for from
trading or professional incomes, in the way of direct
taxation.—(Hear.) In a word, I consider that no
principle can be more just, or more free from objec-
tion, than that which we have acted upon; and I should
greatly dread the introduction of any other principle.
—(Hear, hear.) I come now to the question raised
by the Hon. Member opposite, whether or no it is expe-
dient that this tax should be continued for three years,
or only for one year. I shall give my decided support
to the Government in maintaining the tax for the period
of three years.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Montrose says one year only ; and with his (Tiniest that
an immense reduction may be effected in the extent of
our naval and military forces, that proposition is con-
sistent enough ; but how the Hon. Member Tor War
wickahire can vote for the one year amendment I do not
so well understand.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) This
Hon. Gentleman announces that he shall give his cordial
support to Government in maintaining the full comple-
ment of forces they judge necessary under existing
circumstances. Now if these forces are to be so main-
tained—and I am decidedly of opinion they should be
--(Hear, hear)—I cannot foresee such a reduction in the
estimates as will enable us to dispense with the income-
tax on the sth of April, 1849.—(Hear.) True the Hon.
Member for Warwickshire, while he said he would re-
tain the full naval and military complements, intimated
there were other items on which great reductions
could be made ; but, on coming to particulars,
we find that the Hon. Member's contemplated
retrenchments apply just to the subject of
education charities, and to money paid to the Hon.
Member for Bolton for inquiring into an improved mode
of keeping the national accounts.—(Laughter.) Now,
as to the money paid to the Hon. Gentleman opposite,
that is clearly irrecoverable.—(Laughter.) And as to
the other possible retrenchment of the Hon. Member for
Warwickshire, I don't believe it would realise a saving
of 1,000/. a year, manifestly a small matter. That large
reductions may be made in the details of the naval and
military expenditure I am clearly of opinion—(Hear,
hear)—and I am equally of opinion that economy in the
details of other departments may be introduced. Nor
would I advocate the continuance of the income-tax for
three years, if I thought its continuance would operate
against the most strict and searching inquiry into the
economy which may be effected in all the public depart-
ments; but, at the same time, I would have the House
and the country feel that there is a degree of economy
which in the end proves anything but economical.—
(Hear, hear.) In ;1835 the estimates, indeed, were lower
than they have been since; but, observe, we were very
shortly afterwards compelled to raise them very mate-
rially.—(Hear, hear.) I shall support the Government
proposition, because, while deeply impressed with the
necessity for economy, I am, on the other hand, as deeply
impressed with the essential necessity of maintaining
the public credit.—(Hear, hear.) Gentlemen opposite,
indeed, say, " Oh, as to the public credit, there can be
no question about maintaining that; we propose to revise
the whole system of taxation, to apportion the taxes
more equally, but we entirely concur in the universal
feeling as to the necessity of maintaining the public
credit." Yes, very true ; but I would rather have the
income-tax in reserve, before we set about considering
an amended system of taxation. If a new system of
taxation were to be proposed in February next, with
the certainty of the income-tax expiring on the sth of
April following, notwithstanding the profession of your
determination to support the public credit, I should be
rather apprehensive on the subject, should the new
scheme by any possibility turn out a failure.—(Hear,
hear.) On the other hand, should the new scheme
answer, it will be very easy to repeal the income-tax.
At all events, the fact of this reserve against necessity
will give the opportunity for more mature consideration
of the subject, without shaking the confidence of the
public creditor.—(Hear, hear.) I cannot conceive it
possible that there will be such a reduction in the public
expenditure, as will enable us to dispense with five
millions of revenue; nor do I think it likely that you
will be prepared, by next February, with any scheme
which will produce you such an amount at so little cost
in the collection, and so little onerous in itself, as is the
tax now before us. Had the Government found it abso-
lutely necessary to persevere in the larger taxation they
at first proposed, in order to avoid debt in time of peace,
so great is my dread of the incurrence of such a debt, 1
would have supported them; but at the same time I am
far from blaming them that after the decided expression
of public opinion on the subject they withdrew the addi-
tional 2 per cent.—(Hear, hear.) With reference to the
probability of an increase in the customs revenue, there
was certainly never such a combination of circumstances
affecting that revenue as that combination of circum-
stances which has existed during the past two years,
and by which the trading and commercial energies of
this country have been paralysed.—(Hear.) I find it,
therefore, my duty, in this period of commercial de•
pression, to assort my continued adherence to the prin-
ciples on which the remissions I effected took place.—
(Cheers.) I have the firmest confidence in the justice of
those principles.—(Hear.) Their operation has been
impeded by that combination of circumstances to which
I have referred, the necessity of supporting the people of
one of these islands by ten millions of loan, raised here,
the necessity of importing enormous quantities of foreign
corn for the consumption of our own people, the;derange-
meats, commercial and monetary, which affected our
whole commercial and trading community; but these
facts, so far from making me regret the proposals which
I made respecting the improvement of our commercial
policy—so far from making: me distrust the princi-
ples on which those proposals were made, however dis-
heartening the facts may seem in some respects, have led
me to a totally opposite conclusion—have made me
rejoice that when the relaxations were proposed they
were adopted.—(Hear, hear.) I still retain a confident
expectation that the energies of this country will rise
superior to its present commercial depression, and that
we shall live to see the time when the revenue of the
country shall flourish as it did iu 1845, and even with
increase.—(Hear, hear.) And here let me observe,
that one of my reasons for assenting to the renewal
of the income tax for three years, is precise]; the re-
collection that it was immediately after the year of pros-
perity to which I refer that the heavy debt and the
paralyzing circumstances under which we now suffer
were thrown upon us.—(Hear.) I must own further,
that I am influenced in my support of the tax's continu-
ance for three years very materially by reference to the
wonderful events which have taken place within a very