The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-08 00:00:00

mortality that had occurred in the Kilrush Union work-
house.

Mr. T. DUNCOLMBE gave notice that on Wednesday
he should move for copies of all correspondence that had
taken place between the Government and all foreign
powers on the affairs of Rome during 1849.
Lord DUNCAN gave notice that tie should postpone
his motion on the window-ux sine die
WOODS AND FORESTS.
Viscount DUNCAN asked the First Commissioner of
Woods, Forests, &c., whether it was the intention of the
Government, during the course of the present session, to
bring in a Bill to make better provision for the manage-
ment of the Woods, Forests, awl Land Revenues of the
Crown, and for the direction of Public Works and Build-
ings ; and if so, at what period of the session it was
likely that the Bill will be produced?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that it was
the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on
the subject as early after Easter as possible.
MANAGEMENT OF CHURCH LANDS.
Mr. E. DENISON wished to know whether a Bill had
been prepared with regard to the management of church
lands, and when it would be laid oa the table of the
House?
Sir GEORGE GREY said a Bill had been prepared
by the Commission which had been appointed, but it had
subsequently undergone considerable alteration. How-
ever, it was now in a state to be presented to the House,
and he believed it would bo presented before Easter.
REDUCTION OF DUTY ON COFFEE AND
TIMBER.
Mr. AIOFFATT wished to ask the Chancellor of
Exchequer when he intended that the proposed reduc-
tion of the duty on crAYee and timber should come into
effoct?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was anxious that the reduction should take place as soon
as possible, but as he had no control over the House it
was impossible for him to fix any particular day.
THE NEW HOUSE-TAX.
Sir J. DUKE wished to know whether the Chancellor
of the Exchequer intended that warehouses, which were
not before charged with window duty, should now come
under the operation of the houce-tax?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No
houses which do not come under the description of in-
habited houses will he accessed to the tax.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY wished to know whether
shops which were part of house, would be included in
tax.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
that such premises as those described by the Hon. Al-
derman would bo liable to the tax of 64. in the pound,
instead of eif., as other houses were taxed.
Mr. J. 'WILLIAMS inquired whether houses would
be rated to the tax under the poor-rate assessment or
under a new one?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that he proposed that the assessment should he cn
the annuel value of the houses, but at present be would
not confine himself to any particular mode of getting at
the value. He certainly should not take the poor-rate as-
sessment, because then parishes would heve the power
of limiting the amount of income-tax which they would
have to pay at their own pleasure.
THE BUDGET.
RE-IMPOSITION OF TILE INCOME-TAX.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee of Supply.
Mr. IIERRIES rose, according to notice, to move, as
an amendment, That it is the opinion of this House
that ' the respective duties in Great Britain on profits
arising from property, professions, trades, and offices,
and the stamp duties in Ireland, greeted by two Aet,
passed in the sixthyear cf herpresent Majesty, and which
have been continued and amended by several subse-
quent Acts,' were granted for limited periods, and to
meet temporary exigencies: that it is highly expedient
to adhere to the declared intentions of Parliament when
these duties were granted and continued; and, in order
to secure their speediest practicable cessation, to limit
the renewal of any portion of them to such an amount
as may be sufficient, in the existing state of the public
revenue, to provide for the expenditure sanctioned
by Parliament, aid for the due maintenance of
public credit." He said in rising to address the House
in the hope of inducing them, by the reasons which
he had to offer, to coincide with his amendment
ho begged to say that ho had seen with great
satisfaction the statement in the public papers
of the great increase in the revenue of the
country as exhibited in the quarter's return. That
consideration added great weight to that which he had
to say. It was on account of the prosperity, and
of tho means which the increased prosperity
would afford to the House of accomplishing
an act of justice, that he now came forward be-
fore the House and the country with this proposition.
He would now, with the permission of the House, ex-
pressly state that he should refrain from entering into
any details.—(Hear, hear.) Ile would not attempt
to impugn any of the statements of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, but, in order to keep himself strictly
to the question, he would willingly accept all
his statements. He accepted all his statements as if
they were strictly correct.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
But whilst he did that he must at the same time express
his expectations that there would year by 3-ear be a
larger surplus in the revenue.—(Hear, hear.) He ac-
knowledged that he could not refrain from stating his
expectation that there would be a larger surplus was
only obtained under the statements of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that there was now a surplus of
1.890,0001. applicable to the necessities of the country.
Yet, however he might rejoice in this surplus, he had
still to allow some 22,0001. or 23,000/. for the
expenses of the Kafir, wer.—(llear, hear.) He must now
remind the House that the fact was, that the property
and income tax was first imposed for a period of three
years, and that it was imposed in 1842 only to satisfy
the temporary exigencies of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
He took the right of supposing that the income tax as
now proposed was the income tax which was originally
instituted, for if it had not been so, he was quite sure
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his
statement to the House would have said so. Had he
not said so, he (Mr. Herries) would have been
obliged to suspect the Right Hon. Baronet of a practice
to which he little thought him liable.—(Hear, hear.) He
expected, therefore, that it was the incomsetax which he
intended to propose, and that it was intended to propose
it for three yearn.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir Charles
Wood.) Ho was glad to accept that admission, and he
should reason upon it as a conclusion in his argument.—
(Hear, hear.) He must now review the history of the
income-tax. It should be recollected that it was imposed
in 1842 by Sir Robert Peel, in order to relieve the
country from its difficulties with regard to financial
matters.—(Hear, hear.) Ho trusted that ho should be
excused from referring to the fact that this deficiency of
3,800,000/. was constituted by the Whigs, and that the
income-tax was imposed to meet this deficiency, to remove
the obstruction of trade, and to facilitate the action of com-
merce. Now Sir R. Peel distinctly declared, and there
could be no doubt about the fact, that he took this tax
as a temporary measure, and for a special purpose. He
took it, as stated in the words of the amendment for a
temporary purpose, and to meet a special emer-
gency. He then stated distinctly that he be-
lieved a period of five years would be sufficient
for the accomplishment of the purpose, but that
he would only take the tax for three years, in the hope
that there would be no necessity for its renewal. It so
happened, however, that in 1845 Sir Robert Peel came
to ask for its renewal, which was granted under the then
especial circumstances of the country. lii 1848 there
was another extension of the tax, but at that
time the country was suffering from extreme com-
mercial distress, and therefore its renewal then was
no breach of the principle to which ho was about to call
the attention of the House. The Noble Lord, however,
with some degree of levity, asked the House not only
to renew the tax but to augment it, but the
House refused to sanction the latter part of the
Noble Lord's proposition, and eventually it was
not persevered in. That brought them down to the pre-
sent period; but before he proceeded now to ask the
House to refuse the continuance of the tax altogether,
he wished to direct the attention of the House to the
opinions cf men of the highest eminence, who had
filled tl.e most responsible offices of the state, as
to the peculiar character of this tax.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not propose to use the extracts which
he should take the liberty of reading as an argumenium
ad hominem, he used them because they contatned in
themselves. expressions of sound truth and judgment,
which ho ventured to hope the House would be disposed
to adhere to on the present occasion. It would be un

necessary for him to read to them the opinions
of Sir Robert Peel, because the terms in which
Sir Robert Peel introduced the tax in 1842 must be
fresh in the recollection of everybody. For the reasons
he had already stated, Sir Robert Peel induced the
House in the first instance to adopt his proposition;
and on the second occasion, when he pressed the con-
tinuance of the income-tax, he expressly declared
that he did hope that within the time the tax was
to be extended to provision would be made by alte-
rations and augmentation of the revenue to render
any further renewal of the income-tax unnecessary.
When Sir R. Peel proposed the renewal of the income-
tax he did not receive unqualified support. Those who
now sat in opposition expressed themselves very
strongly against the tax, but not so much with re-

ferenCe to' its being then imposed as to its cha-
racter. They agreed as to its renewal, but
were opposed to the form in which it was levied.
It was opposed by Lord John Russell, Mr. Labouchere,
Lord Howick, and though last, not least, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) The words,
then, used by the present Prime Minister deserved the

serious attention of the House on the present solemn
occasion, when they were about to determine whether
they should or should not have a permanent income-tax.
The Noble Lord, in 1842, said the evil of the income-
tax was not confined to the sum drawn from the pockets
of the people, that he considered it an inquisitorial tax,
and that it ought only to be resorted, as a last resource
in periods of difilculty.—(Hear, hear.) Again, in
1845, he said it was a tax subject to some
of the greatest objections which could be urged against
any tax, that he was of opinion that inequality of tax-
ation and fraud were inherent qualities of the tax.
—(FTear, hear.) Then, again, when the Noble Lord
asked for a continuance of the tax in 1848, he
did so on the ground that almost unparalleled
distress existed at the time in the country. The
Noble Lord did not on that occasion offer any other

reason why they should again resort to the tax fir a
further period.—(flear, hear.) ikir. Labouchere, now
the President of the Board of Trade, also said, in 1848,
" God forbid thfit, under the present difficulties
of the country, they should require the house
to adopt such a measure as the imposition
of a house-tax, adding that he would resort to any other
means rather than adopt such a system of taxation, which
was alien to the habits of the people of this country, and
which was carried into effect in an inquisitorial manner,
and attended with vexaticna proceedings infinitely
more annoying than the amount of money taken

from the people's pockets."—(Hear, hear.) Now, as
the country was not now under the pressure of thine
difficulties which existad at that time, these arguments
applied with tenfold force against the re-imposition of
the tax this year. Lard H ,wick said that on the prin-
ciple of justice and sound policy he was of opinion that
the Home ought to restrict the imposition of a tax so
excedingly odious as that proposed by Sir R. Peel.
" They were told," said that Noble Lord, " that taxaticn
ought to be equal, but wai anything more monstrously
unequal than a property-tax?"—(Hear, hear.) The
First Lord of the Admiralty, who had always been a
consistent and arduous opponent of the tax,
had said, in 1845 and 1848, that he yielded only tO
necessity, and to the prospect of a failing revenue in
giving any degree of support to the tax; he hoped,
therefore, he might challenge that Right Hon. Gentle-
man's vote on this occasion in favour of his amendment.
Ile nut it to the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
the question how, without necessity, when there was no
emergency imperatively to demand, he could now pro-
pose the re-imposition of this tax, in et hich vexation, in-
justice, and fraud were, according to the account of his own
party, inherent and inseparable? He called upon the
Right Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had so stigmatised
this tax when in opposition, whether they had changed
their opinions now? He himself was but too strongly
impressed with the fact that the tax was vexatious
and injurious. He knew that the farmer, who %MB losing
money every day; the merchant, whose affairs were sub•
ject to the inquisition of he tax, and the professional man,
whose hard-earned profits were unfairly and unequally
pressed upon, were fully convinced that this tax was
vexatious and unjust. The first claim for reduction, he
contended, was the income-tax. He could not see
where was the great benefit of the proposal of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he did not pro-
pose to make anything cheaper, or to give any
great relief to any great class of the country.
It was evident to any one from the opinions gene-
rally expressed, that it was the intention of
the Government that this tax should continue.
He, therefore, invited the House seriously to con-
sider this proposition on the very first occasion
which had ever been available.—(Hear, hear.) Ho was
quite aware of the difficulty of adjusting that tax.—
(Hear, hear.) As a temporary tax he believed that
nobody would hesitate to accede to ,it, and
he believed that not any of the friends
of Sir Robert Peel would have attempted for a
moment to say that it was Sir Robert's intention in
any way to make it a permanent tax.—(Hear, hear.)
He spoke as one who had a right to speak upon
this subject, for although not in office, he had
been on terms the most confidential with
that great statesman during the concoction of the in-
come-tax—(Hear, hear)—aud be could of nis own know-
ledge say that it was only intended as a temporary im-
position to meet a temporary exigency.—(Cheers.)
And yet that was now the course pursued
by the Noble Lord? He intended to make this
tax a permanent one. The Noble Lord intended to in-
troduce this measure{ to-night, but ke would tell him
that it he did it would be torn to tatters before it passed
through the House.—(Hear, hear.) He would now
ask Hon. Gentlemen who were Members from Ireland
how it would affect their country? Sir Robert Peel,
in introducing this measure, had given good reasons
why the Act for imposing the income-tax should not
extend to Ireland. That great man had always been
consistent, and he (Mr. 'Terries) knew that the reasons
on which he acted were always valid; and he himself
would say that if it was now proposed to extend this
Act to Ireland, with all its inequalities, eith all its
wrongs, with all its injustice, he should roost certainly
vote against the motion.—(Hear.) lied the great man
who originally imposed that tax been now
amongst them he (Mr. 'Terries) would never have bad
occasion to submit that motion, for he would have been
sure to moot the question and to move for an abolition
of the tax.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared from the state-
ment that there was now a surplus from the income-tax
of about 2,2oo,oool.—(l)iesent from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.) The liight Hon. Gentleman shook his
head. He had himself sated it at 1.900 0001., and the
produce of the year had exceeded his expectations by
200 0001. or 300,0001. However he would make a com-
promise, and would take 2,000,000/. as an undoubtedly
fair surplus revenue for the next year. The property-
tax at present levied was at the rate of 7d. in the pound
upon all income. Now every penny of that produced
about 780,0001, and he contended that there was room,
therefore, with the present surplus, and having a due
regard to the maintenance of the public credit, for a re-
duction of at least two-sevenths of the property-tax. If
his proposition was accepted, therefore, the country
would be relieved from property-tax to the amount of
1,560,0001. The window-tax was an old tax, to which
the people were pretty well accustomed, but still it was
one which be would be glad to see reduced. The
abolition of that tax had been recommended upon
sanitary grounds, and he thought the case might easily be
met by passing an act allowing all persons to open
whet new windows they pleased without being subjected
to any additional duty. If such a boon were ac-
companied by the removal of 1,560,000/. of income-tax,
it would, he was sure, give the utmost satisfaction to
the country. The House had now to decide between the
plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that which
he (Mr. Herries) had submitted to them. The proposal
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the perpetuation
of the income-tax with all its defects. On the other
hand, he (Mr. Herries) proposed that they should afford
relief from direct taxation by a diminution of the pro-
perty-tax, instead of affording less relief by a remission
of the window-tax. If the House assented to the reso-
lution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the country
was doomed to bear the income-tax for an indefinite
period; but, if they determined to adopt the more just,
the more honest, as well as the more politic course which
he (Mr. Herriee) recommended, the income-tax was
doomed to a speedy extinction. The country now
awaited the decision of the Government and of the
House on this question; and he would ask the Noble
Lord bow, consistently with his duty, at a period when
there was no danger of foreign war or of internal disaf-
fection, with a surplus in band which afforded the means
of materially reducing the property-tax, he could propose
the corvinuance of an impost which had been so gene-
rally and so justly stigmatized.—(Cheers.)
The SPEAKER having then read the original resolu-
tion and the amendment,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Right Hon. Gentlemen had fairly put the question be-
fore the House, and in accordance with ,the expecta-
tions he had formed on a previous evening. But in
quoting his opinions the Right Hun. Gentleman bad only
taken short extracts, and bad not given the whole of his
opinions, which would have made the meaning more
distinct. He did not deprecate the fullest reference to
any former opinions he might have expressed; all he
asked was that the reference should be made generally,
and not to a single sentence. It was perfectly true he
had opposed the imposition of the income tax in 1842.
He bad stated it then as liable to many objections; he
thought so still.—(Hear.) Now if the Right Honour-
able Gentleman would state any tax to which similar
objections could not be, made ho would be astonished.
They must take the whole body of taxation to see
if a tax was unjust. He had then stated the
grounds on which he opposed the imposition of the
tax. But he had said also that if it were proposed as a
measure to enable the Government to get rid of such
great monopolies as those of sugar, timber, and corn, he
would vote for it; and he confessed he did not know
what portion of bis public conduct was inconsistent with
that declaration.—(hear, hear.) He granted the tax
bad beets imposed for a temporary purpose, and in
order to make up a deficiency whicli had occurred in the
revenue. The Right Hon. Gentleman Wee proposed it
in 1846 stated it was for a temporary purpose, and that
it had answered. The Right Hen. Gentleman said he
did not ask the House then for the income-tax to mee

any want or supply any deficiency, but merely to carry
out a great exp,rim,nt in taxation which he was mak-

ing. The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite ( Hr.
Herries) seemed to doubt what he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) was saying. With the permission of
the House ne would r.ftr to Sir Robert Peel's speech
upon the o3casion.—(Hear, hear.) Theso were the words
of Sir R. Peel in 1845 —" We propose—such has been
the increase in the revenue from a permanent source of in-
come daring the continuance of the income-tax, we might
have avoided making this experiment, or avoided applying
for increased taxation—we propose to continue the
income-tax, not to provide a surp'us, but to enable us to
make those great experiments which we have com-
menced."—(Hear, hear.) Again, the Right Hon.

ronet went on to say, " it would be impossible to do this
unless you continued for a certain period that tax, and
I hope that, after three years, it will be terminated.
But, meantime, I trust Parliament is not now disposed
to dispense with the imposition of this tax." It was
not, therefore, for the purpose of making good a defi-
ciency in the revenue, but for the purpose of making fur-
ther experiments in the way of financial improvement—
for the purpose of repealing and reducing the duties
which he thought more objectionable than the income-
tax itself—that Sir R. Peel in the year 1845 had pro-
posed a renewal of that latter tax. It was true that

upon that occasion he (the Chancellor of the Exchquer)
had objected to the proposal which Sir It. Peel had made
on the subject of the sugar duties. But what had he
then said with respect to the income-tax? He had said—
" We are now told that this tax was imposed for the
purposes of carrying through a great experiment in tax-
ation. I do not object to it on these grounds."
He did not think, therefore, that he could be
charged with inconsistency upon that point; for
he had supported the renewal of the income
tax in the year 1845 expressly for the purpose
of enabling the House and the Government to make a
great experiment in the way of the reduction of other
taxes. In the year 1848, when he had himself proposed
a continuance of the income tax, he had used language
which he was at present prepared to repeat. lie had
said on that occasion that the ground on which he had
opposed the imposition of the ioacome-tax in the year
1842 was that that tax was too high a price to Pay fur
the benefit they were to receive trots the changes of
taxation which had then been proposed ; but be had
stated in the year 1842, in opposing that tax, that if
an
alteration were made in the duties on corn, on sugar,
he
timber, and on other great articles of culls
should be ready to vote fur direct taxation, um
even for
ption,
the income-tax. Now, those duties had ' and
ie
le
13 °
imposition
and circumstances which would justify the Pea
the retention of the income taxthe had occurred since the
P
year 1842, and he had therefore with I nsistenc
1848 Y
proposed a renewal of the iileorae-tax is
and he proposed it at the present time. 110 believed
that that course was in perfect conformity with the policy
e
which had been avowed and adopted by the late Sir It.
Peel, The Right Hon. Gentl, mats (Mr. [-lorries) had said
that that was the first Legitimate opportunity they hid en-
joyed of repealing or reducing' the income-tax; because
they had at
present for the first time, while deding• with
that question,
a surplus revenue and a state of national
prosperity. But they had the benefit of a similar sur-
plus arid of a similar national prospetity in the year
1845, The Right Hon. Gentleman might then have

The t
proposed the total abolition of the income-tax.
inl
jections to the inequality and injustice of the MX, 11 tf
the frauds to which it was calculated to give rise, 0
been as strong then as they were at the present dap'
yet the Right Hen. Gentleman had proposed at tbisd'fir
rind that the n!at should be swept away. lie slicninn
tiler remind the Hight Hun. Gentleman that it vo",il
a much m,:ro satisfactory preceeding to saneep it awhogi
Once, it that were possible, than to propose that it Id
be reduced by the amount of 2d. in the pound. 0
year 1845 Sir R. Peel and the Hou,e of Comieensfa
thought proper—and wisely as he (the Char:cent:ire,
Exchequer) believed—to renew the six for a litnitea pt
nn
rind; and they were at present reaping the gig!! ni
of the amended system of taxation which had 'not
means been resured. He hoped, too, that in the
of three years from the present time they weld(' Zot
be erno,,ing similar advantages, and that it ory
then be open to them again to deal with the in,C
tax in whatever way they might think ono
seemed to be supposed in some quarters that beadmaking inroads on the national faith and ern
by the, course which ho at present proposed to 14,1
An Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think tha9p
would destroy the credit of the country by a ren°,l,6oa
of taxes to the amount of 1,536,0001. But Lord nnt
had stated. openly and candidly—and he (the Chan'Elp
of the Exchequer) respected the Noble Lord Oro
frankness of his declaration—that he proposed torei
the income tax by an amount of ono-half or olebit(
o?
and the Right Honourable Gentleman at present tern
that it should be reduced from 7d. to sd, in the ego
The Right Hon. Gentleman would, therefore, wire's'i
taxes to the extent of 1,560,0001.; while ho (the Cno'y
for of the Exchequer) proposed that they should b,6
duced by a somewhat smaller amount. Under the!, i
cumstancen Hoa. Gentleman opposite could bannlii
right to charge her Majesty's Government with la
honesty in their present financial proposals, or to fiefo
they were running a risk of destroying the credit °be I
country; or, at all events, the dishonesty would
on
great on the opposite side of the House as on that ()Pt p
he tied the honour to sit. It had also been said tin/0
was endangering the national faith, by proposilon
out of a reduction of 1,536,0001. not less than 1,10"ny
should be a reduction of direct taxation. The
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley, we believe) 0
complained that her Majesty's Government were'
ducing direct taxation, and that in that respeetn
were nut acting on their own princiele, that rednfe;
of taxation ought to take place on the great stile' 1)
consumption, or on the raw materials of industran tii
Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they would 0
the national credit by the adoption of such a Ongn
But that was the very system proposed by the ?
Hon. Gentleman the Member fur Stamford (g,r'd
ries); so that bet ween the two Gentlemen, wb°s
should consider as, the highest authorities 11111013 g the r'o,
opposite, on all commercial and financial quen'to
there was a direst di(cordance of opinion upon ty
point. The whole argument of the Right Hon. Peilit
man was founded, on the supposition that the proPn9ol
(+ he Chancellor ,ef the Exchequer) had submitted two
House was a proposal for a permanent income, talc;
he had nut said one syllable to that effect, and no fii.
sal he had made could bear that construction.--k of
hear.) He had invariably spoken of the tax as ennt
posed in order t o cover removals or modificatiend
duties which unduly interfered with the develorn
of the national resources. He then proposed tbeon
newel of the hac:ome-tax as it creedfor a limited f of
of three years. He was well aware, and so wee IF
Right Hon. Geiatleman, of the difficulty, and the
most impossibility , as the Right Hon. Gentleman bhot
appeared to this k, of modifying the schedules
.104
manner which would be fair to all parties, lie bellefn
the Right Hon. G. ,ntleman had somewhat misrepretV,
the intentions of Sir R. Peel upon that subject, bendi
he remembered to have heard that Right Hon. Bsnort
say that he thou gait it would be most dangerous tope
tempt to modity the schedules. The House wouldo
come persuaded , of the difficulty of such a task wheun
remembered what opposite suggestions bad been nyt
upon the matter.. Oue gentleman had stated the On,
rice of Schedule I 3; another had stated the Waste
Schedule D; and his Hon. and Gallant Friend the fe ,
ber for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) had shown the 'nit
rice of a por ion .of Schedule E. But if complaints -0!
made of the Innis. tine of the tax to all the Pertill
eluded in its opet ation, it might so happen that it
not very unjust tt , any of them.--(Hear, hear, n(n
laugh.) He would recommend Hon. Gentlemen, ~..,0
they made up their minds that any one se`ity.
shout i be reducod, to consider what effect that retie
Lion might have on some of the other scheentl
which might b a altered with equal or even
greater propriety a But he thought it better to ptv
any discussion upon those points until they Arndt,' it
to consider the various schedules in the Bill'er
ono who had ever bad to deal with the 01V
tax had found it possible to alter the schedules. AO
great man, Mr. Pitt, who had imposed and contineTni
income-tax—FA:l HON. MEMBER here observed tbsedil
was in time cf w: ifj—it had been originally haindlo
time of war; but Mr. Pitt had maintained the see
90.
on the ground the t they could not be properly nri° 0
altered, and on that ground he had opposed stn.
alteration when tanoposed by Mr. Addington in t'inat,
peace. Mr. Pitt h lid on that occasion rested his 0P oal
tion to the change on the grounds of its injustice ani ibt
the necessity of tihe case. He (the Chancellor o,,nd
ci
Exchequer) proposed that the tax should be cent7facl
for three years. ito thought it most desirable thilnoo
the purpose of em tbling them to make other realennolll'
of taxation, it should be continued for that period; 'wool
seemed to him moat inexpedient that so large anti° 001
of taxation should depend upon an annual vote. etti
he would not preclude the Right Hen. Gentle?
from repealing to.) tax next year, if he should tbinf
fit, and if he should at that time be holding the °de
winch he (the Ch ancellor of the Exchequer) et Into
scut so unworthily filled. It would no doubt have, 00
the easier course for him to have simply propose,' t lit
the tax should he renewed for a single year;
subject'
did not think that,, with his opinions upon the 51101
it would have been honest on his part to have .
001,
n'
that course. The Eight Hon. Gentleman had sand 4(d
if the tax were to ha continued for three years it sneivna
necessarily be extended to Ireland. But he (the lio
cellor of the Exchequer) said directly the reverse. ?
did not at that mom eft remember what were the pre slit
grounds on which Sit' Robert Peel in introducing,
tax had stated than Ireland ought to be exempted 'boll
its operation; but, h a felt assured that any reason lf,led
could then have be en urged for such a course elinhos
still more strongly at present. Ireland had not nni
gone through the, fearful calamity by which WO
since been visited ; property in Ireland bad net ar
been depreciated iix value; and the owners and One
venom of the soil in Ireland had not then been reennt
ing from a pressur a unexampled in modern times°, 06
country in the world. It would, therefore, be erne' d
unjust to attempt to. impose at present upon Irelept
tax from which she. bad then bash exempted. Annoys'
Gentleman had sand the other night that ho (the nig
cellor of the Excht quer) would perpetuate the neeelnet
for the income-tax by removing the duties from artnisf
of consumption. But he did not propose to take eOO
any such duties. He merely proposed to reduend
duties on three articles; and he believed that after t'sytt
reductions the revenue to be derived from them would ego
revive. He propos., nto reduce the duty on coffee, °boo
he believed would reach its former amount under
fr
change. The tax o. a timber would, he believed. sin°o4
vive under the reds tenon of duty which he prop
°00;
And although the at fount he proposed to remove ',rot,
the duty on windows and houses was, to a certain es
eon
n i
a total loss, it should be remembered that the pr --p eV
house tax would be a continually increasing tax. -10
body was aware how- greatly the number of houses 00
being increased in the neighbourhood of all great t() or
and cities, and must see that a tax on housee wont" de
cessarily go OR augmenting from year to year. o°o
nied that he could fairly be accused of sacrificing
.4.
revenue, and rendering the continuance of the inner
tax unavoidable, by the manner in which he propelled be
deal with the 'Judea on articles of consumption; 5'3,64
said, on the contrary, that Hon. Gentlemen opposite rnie
themselves open to thait charge. Let them look to tie fit
great articles with the duties on which he proposeu,no"
they should deal. The.first proposal he made was a red isy,
tion of the almost prcthibitive duty on foreign ettfli
o
He had objected in the year 1845 to the mode ill WP;of
the late Sir R. Peel lead at that time dealt with the Ord
duties. He had poit ited out the fact that by reden'oo
the duty on colonial sugar, and increasing the ciao 0
foreign sugar, the Right HOD. Baronet was sacrificiebo
certain amount of re-venue without any chance of eTtO
seeing it restored, and that that was, in fact, the Iva fo,
obtain a minimum of r avenue, because the absence Of
and
reign competition wou, d prevent a reduction of Pnince,:nt,
an increase of consumption. But be should ado," Ts
although he objected to that proposal of Sir IL •r;ee,..nii
the year 1845, the Right Hon. Baronet had, in his `n";
nion, amply redeemed that temporary
one who knew what had since occurred upon that sub
jest must be aware of the infinite difficulties with which
error, and eferbn
the Right Hon. Baronet had had to contend. Loenn
at the whole commercial policy of Sir R. Peel, he had n
hesitation in expressing his firm belief that it was sari'
tied to the most cordial approbation. The sugar &Ist
had been altered in the year 1846; and the effect of than
lteration had been a considerable increase in the /tire
nue during the following year. That was a case of nn
renewal of a duty; and he had no doubt inn
that if the Act of 1846 had been left uncles/Aeon
the revenue derived from sugar would be far grettsi
than it was at the present moment. But $7,0.
Act had been altered in consequence of the reline,
of a Committee, of which the late Lord George "'no.
tinck had been either the chairman, or at least a Pon.,
neat member; and in deference to the expressed °Pin,
nions of that Committee he had felt himself bouud to aloe
troduce the Sugar Bill of 1845, by which the duty on '',6
lonial sugar was reduced, and the protection to t'os
colonial interest was still farther extended. He did ~ii a
repent of that measure, he believed it to have werneof
remarkably well; and he found that the consumpae,nna
sugar had increased by not less than 50 per cent. Iv''' n,
the last six years. But that measure necessarily Oito
poued the time at which the revenue would rcanb ",
former amount; and far that result Hon. Gentlemen °l,r,:t
posite were at least as much answerable es lie was. u'nnei
had happened, again, in the case of stamps? ie/ant
proposed a reduction of one-eighth in stamps e'ned
Ho
lowest amount, and then that the duty should be ear--
up uniformly on the ad valorem principle. But
n'
Gentlemen opposite said that, although they anlif—o d:
°
of that principle, they would not allow him to recoil°
large au amount of revenue as that which he had Pr-;
posed; and there had accordingly been a diraihnt'nn
of the revenue which contributed to
prevent the 0
from taking off the income-tax. Then,
again, there
had been a proposal for a total repeal of the Mir
duties. The Hon. Gentleman the Member
Buckinghamshire had on that occasion elocitea/ifi
supported th.t proposal; and how, therefore, he wen
ask, could the Hon. Gentleman or his party repro no
him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with lt,
undue reduction of taxation, after he had himself s, r. '
ported a proposal for the total repeal of a tax amount"

;tax. There;
;he tux, 0 t
give rise,
merit deY,
seci at tb ail
He 41°111d
tat it wee
it awl/
ethat bo
at it s
tound. In
Conoleav7
a coellor °f
r a limited
he Ell°
I had bit'
; in the eeti
sg
y would 0
that it 11
1 the 10°1
link fit•
ra that be'
k and ,
,ed to 10"
think lb.°
reOf
V a
Lord St
he Chasa
Lord fer
osed to re'
or ow°
esent POP
in the P°l
are, Barrel
(the CO
should 13
odor the°
mild hat
out with
, or to 61
credit °
would k
; that OP
1 said tbi
sroposisg
an 1,100
n. Tbe
believe)
ment wet
respect
at reds
eat antic
ndustrj•
y would
uch a 01
by the
'd
ten, wl3'
oßg the
sial gee
n two°
Hon. p
he prop,
omitted
saw tax
and ne
:tioll.-""
ax aB°
Ddifleati
devel(
posed
limited
d so vi
, and
;leman]
hedulei
110 b
aisrepr'
oject, I
Hon. I
gerous
ge arca
L*ll whi
d beet
ited tb,
O inju
,nd the
swn tb;
mplain
to pal
en the
, hear,
lemen,
one
t that
er sol
✓ eve
sr to p
show
fie Bit
the
)(Jules,
contir
rved
ly iml
the s(
erly C
osed ;
;on in
.d hii
justio
icellol
be c(
able I
ter re,
)eriot
ge an
al vol
i. Ge
shou
jog t
suer)
tbt hi
trope
year;
the
ha's
had s
ars i
e (tb
revel
e th(
rodu
.emp
ream.
urse
id a
Lich
ad
13 at
seen
tim,
be
In I
d.
3 (ti
the]
fron
,43 to
re
tat
Iwo
coif(
It u
ved
0
rem
rtai
he
tax
'ho
gre
tr.
irifi
the
pt.(
:ior
Ipo
ti
•op,
Pea
eig
le
the
;11C1
ice
the
en
3f.
I
,
in
a.
3 t
h
lvii
ec
Ca
JO
In
as
ti
01
38
nl
)13
33
,r
Ie
r
3
.1

develor
posed tbei;
limited J'
d so wßei
, and th.e
;leman
hedules .104'

„annually to 700.0001? There aas another proposal put
forward by Hon. Gen ,ieret n opposite, namely,
a proposal
for a repeal of'
the rneli-' ex, which would entail a less to
the revenue cf no', less than 5,000,000/. The ilee. Gen-
tietnatt the 11Praher for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had
told him that ',le
(the Chancellor of the Excheqs, r) was
acting unjw,tit in proposing to reduce taxes which were
pain by OA consumer, and yet the lion. Gentleman and
the grer,t party with which he was connected wished for
the repeal of a duty paid by the consumer, and under
whi
ne a sum of net less than 5,000,000/. was annually
ea'.sed. Did Hon. Gentlemen opposite belt'va that it
that proposal were carried it would be possible to reeeal
the income-tax?—(Hear, hear.) His belief was, that if
taxes on consumption were judiciously reduced, the re-
venue derived from them would revive, end the if the
national credit were to be staked on cur existing taxa-
it°ll, it was wise to remove from that taxation its most
'objectionable features; for the more popular they made
their taxes, the more certain it was that they would be
able to raise them.—(Hear, hear.) Ho should like to
ask Honourable Gentleman opposite which tax was the
More likely to be permanent—the window-tax, with
all its sins on its head, or the house-tax, to which no
objection had as yet been stated ? He asked whether it
was likely that the duty on coffee could be made more
Produetive by reducing it to such an amount a: would
prevent, he hoped, that adulteration of the article
which had recently taken place, or by leaving it at. its
present amount, under which the consumption had fallen
"Ito the extent of 10,000,000 lbs. or 12,000,000 Ibr,.
within the last few years ? lie felt perfectly convinced
that, under the reduction of duty which he proposed.
into would here a larger amount of coffee introduced
'nto this country, and a consequent improvement o• the
revenue, so that the course that he was taking was
strictly in accordance with that which Parliansent had
11! late years pursued. He had stated the other night
"ow rapidly the revenue had risen under the pressure
r't• the incotnentsx. and that after the rep-al of
7,000,0001, of taxes the ordinary sources of revenue
had realised their usual amount between the year 1844
sad the year 1850. Was not that likely to happen
again? and had not the Right Hon. Gentleman that
evening given them some reason to believe that that
!aught occur, even to an extent beyond what he (the
t(Chancellor of the Exchequer) anticipated ? He ad-
1311tted that the revenue of the last qu irter
W” better thin anv estimate which had been
furnished to him by the officers of his depart-
ment had led him to suppose, and that every material
branch
Of the revenue for the quarter showed a
decided improvement in the condition of the people. To
what was that improvement owing? He believed that it
'Was Owing to a wise legislation, by which the springs of
industry had been relieved; and let it be remembered that
that had happened under the imposition of the income-
'ar. He said that it would be wise on their parts to
continue that tax until they should have removed or re-
duced other taxes of a more objectionable character;
and that was the course which he proposed they should
then pursue. Let them look at what happened in the
cale of sugar. The consumption of sugar had been about
4,000,000 cwta. in the year 1844, and it had been about
'6,000,000 cwts. last year. And was it no benefit to the
great body of the people of this country that that in-
crease of 50 per cent, in the consumtrion should have
taken place? Again, the late Sir *Robert Peel had
effected a considerable reduction in the duty on foreign
spirits; and yet, three years after that reduction,
the revenue derived from that source had be-
come as great as es er, while the consumption of Bri-
tish and colonial spirits had increased. Let them look
at the excise revenue, which was usually taken as the
great test of the condition of the people. During the
last ten years the excise duties had been reduced by an
amount of 1,500,0001, and vet the Escise revenue was
higher at present than it had been at the commence-
'bent of that period. On the sth of April lust de
increase in the excise revenue had amounted to about
335,0004 and to that might ho added the whole amount
of the brick duty, which had not bsen paid last year, but
which had been paid in the year preceding. With the
addition of the amount of the brick duty there would
woe been an increase in the exci e duty last year to the
ottetst of not less than 535 0001. He had already stated
rtTilittpeshredeindt not expect that duty would be so large in
Year, because it was a bad one fur malting
tilireP3sas• He had quoted those cases in order to show
effect of the commercial legislation they had of late
yearn adopted. He would ask whether it was not likely
t
AS‘afinajesOrtey,, results would follow from the proposals which
Government then submitted to the House?
e not the reductions which they proposed of the
,ante character as those which had already been attended
with so much success? The proposed reductions in the
duties
the coffee and timber were precisely similar; and
e substitution of a moderate house-tax for the present
Window-tax would tend materially to promote that
which had been the main object in all their recent legis-
-I.4.oo—the improvement of the moral and material con-
dition of the great mass of the people; while no mea-
Tire could afford such wide advantage from one end of
re country to the other. Some complaints had been
made that he had yielded to the taunts which had
been directed against the inadequacy of his former pro-
wp,aBals for the relief of the agricultural interest, and some
roes seemed to think that he had given up the remie-
-4,11,0f the duty on seeds and the transfer of a portion
the charges for lunatic asylums to the Consolidated
eatl, in consequence of some sneers which had been
h;rected against these proposals. But he had hen told
th~som® Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the reduction of
ee--ti,"aty on seeds would be a hardship and not a benefit
erser—e agricultural interest. With regard to the proposal
transferring a portion of the expenses of lunatic
_th- anis to the Consolidated Fund, ho should observe
heat
if
17geaeridn it were to be taken in the sense in which it had
taken by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
githaasnashire (Mr. Disraeli) on Friday last he should
wen a very unjust and improper measure. If it
fare. - be taken as the first step towarda trans-
tr rig the whole maintenance of the poor of this coin-
sseY ,to the public revenue, he could only say that he
wieeld conceive nothing more fatal than sueh a step to
'co
eitPisrh"PeritY, and even to the very existence, of the
0„ maptre. But he would venture to say that any
-11trY gentleman who might compare the amount of
orivn:faroeitnvould d
enees
derive from the proposed change in
tie • cvlaciow-tax, with the amount of benefit he would
a transfer to the Consolidated Fund of a
tiZt,l°,4 of the expenses for lunatic asylums, would find
lei-pauc would have reason to rejoice at the change. The
Aka ht Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ilerries)
tetold them that he would not, upon that occasion,
7.011_ r into any consideration of the question of protection
of free trade, and that the House had at that mo-
i"4oTt nothing to do with that question. But it appeared
eerm°l, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it was a
bt, Ye alportant point for the House to consider, whether,
.4Peelng the income-tax, they would not render ne-
i),:arY the imposition of a duty on corn, such as was
Lo Pacsed by Lord Stanley and his party.—(Hear.)
settl;4 Stanley had certainly announced that it was his
deed to impose such a duty; and it would be strange in-
fa_ if the Noble Lord heel not consulted the chief
determined
of his party upon such a point before he had
on making that announcement of his policy.
but he_(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should say,
that if
IN-._ the Right Hon. Gentleman did not approve of
o,'.° a course he would be gledly received in the ranks
b;c:ll._at..free-trade party, ehic'h alre,.dy included, accord-
nibogetifate admission of Lord Stanley, every public man
Atl experience, with the single exception of the
oiht Hon. Gentleman. Now, with respect to the im-
n,Mien of a duty upon corn, he should say there was no
w.nerivable measure so objectionable in his eyes. It
thvtuel Produce deep and universal dissatisfaction amon
eg
Deed mass of the people of this country ; acrd he con-
eed that he should rather witness ally amount of fai-
t:ls,, .
considered
in rent than such an evil as that. Ile
,o_sidered that the reductions of texation he had pro-
t'tsjd were of primary importance; but if the proposal
fin," Right Hon. Gentleman were adopted, these naea-
tbees Weald be impossNle, while it would be found that
!nlietee of the Right lion. Gentlman could not be
carr
zed beneficially into operation. If people, then,
Ore
discontented in a case where they derived a benefit,
31-111 d they be better pleased when they derived
himself all?—(Hear, hear.) If he did, he would find
inliaelf greatly mistaken. If the proposal of the
Honourable Gentleman were adopted there
Seal(' be an end of that relief on articles of consumpe
to`tet—an end of that relief which he proposed to grant
tiff, facilities for improving the dwellings of
labouring people in the country, and an end of every
e:Proveusent in that direction in which they had so sue-
e'Taily proceeded for so many years, the results of
theyl7ahn _
rity d peace which he was so happy to hear the Right
"gee. Gentleman ad •
disc • admit; and it was his belief that if the
b. discussion of that evening should end in favour of the
Ight Hon. Gentleman's
proposition, it would debar the
trnment from carrying
out their propositions, which,
iiii!os opinion, were best calculated to promote the true
torterests of this country, and especially that portion of
°llB interests which they were more particularly bound
Protect.—(Hear, hear.)
etr s
I RINsEP said the party to which the Right
is,). Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he-
tCrgecl had found themselves in a state of difficulty which
eoreatened the dissolution of the Government on a
4 her
occasion when there was a deficiency, and were
4:4 same difficulty now that they had a surplus. The
of lco on both occasions was the same—natnely, a want
th,"zed principles, which made the Government like a
ti? at sea without compass. In February the Chan-
2,e(jer of the Exchequer had stated the surplus at
1,11"100131., and now stated it at 1,8900091
ia CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
insre,
r to prevent the Honourable Member from go.
bast
on, he would repeat what he had Stated.
lit. r,.-PRINSEP said he had made no blunder.
teesir, CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
tete for the expression which had escaped him unie-
Aose-onfallY, but thoughtitbetter to interpose for the pur-
Ilese, Preventing the Honorable Member from arguing
that he erroneous assumption. What he had stated• was,_
illilly bat 2,500,0004 and that next year it would proba-
kra 1.892,000/.
IieeI,,•:`,RINSEP thanked the Right Honourable Gen-
4leed" 'or his explanation, but if he had allowed him to
I4lldeeeor ane. he would have found that he had thoroughly
ttese.°43° the matter from first to last. The Right
iiims er% Gentleman had stated the surplus in Feb-
asl)t 2,500,0001, and now he stated the probable sure
ttidest'jtrethe current year at 1,892,0001., and if to this was
,tte• the(7ooi , amount to be paid over to the Commissioners;
ettiteduction of the National Debt, 630,000/, it
T,elo4siLleke it about 2,500,000/. Then there was the
ikhsfie „pato be kept back to meet the expenses of the
tiatleh, Land the claim of the East India Company—
Otte 0 With regard to tha latter, it certainly was no
'1;1441 Testerdav but one which had been under the
.hs 14°f the Right Hon. Gentleman for eight years.
Atts teeti
t Of•
elember for Montrose objected to apply any
slt the
teat „ surplus to the payment of the debt, and he
114 as %
t, thl°rce in his objection. It was nothing more,
%aid all making an investment at 3 per cant., and
not see the wild= of taking the money out of

T ElP

the pockets of an impoverished people for such a pur-
. I pose. Had the Right Hon. Gentleman shown debts in-
, ! volving the payment of a higher interest, he would have
agreed to the eppropriation of a m Bien crm:, or more,
but when he purchased et 97, which wee the price of the
day, the expediency of the outlay might very fairly be
questioned. The Right Hon. Gentleman had reminded
them that within the last 20 years, 20,000,0001. had been
odded to the capital of the debt; a great calamity, no
doubt, in a time of peace, but the Right Hon. Gentleman
omitted to point out that during the same interval a very
large t els:aim had also beer. made in tee interest, which
more than covered the addition. The last loan raised by
' the Right Hon Gentlemen was for Ireland, and that
was raised at 87, about five years ago. Surely it could
not be good policy to borrow at 8 per cent. and after five
years to pay such a price es n 7. It was, in fact, paying
upwards of 6 per conc. for their money. Besides, by purl
classing in this stock they would force up the price, which,
however popular it might be in the City and amongst
the holders of the stock itself, would confer no ad-
vantage on the public. He doubted, also, whether
the Government would thereby gain any facility in
future financial operations, because long before the. Cha-
ncellor of the Exchequer came to bargain an effect would
be nroduced on the funds, as in the case of tae Irish
loan. In his speech on Friday the Right Hon. Gentle-
man declared the principle on which his measures were
based to be to diminish the burden of taxation which
pressed on the labouring classes, and to relic-ye the in-
dustry of the country. The principle was good, but when
the measures of the Right Hon. Gentleman were tested
by it they would not bear investigation.—(gear, hear.)
Dm alteration in the window duties was a very proper
one, but would not relieve one single labourer or working
man.—(Hear) The Right Hon. Gentleman proposed a
reduction in the eerie,/ duties, and with respect to this
part of his policy he hoped to have another opportunity
of making a few observations; but he could not help pro-
testing against the precipitation with which he proposed
to strike off the differential duty on foreign coffee at
once, without notice cr warniog. But were the messes
of the people consumers of coffee?—(Cries of "Yes.")
No; they consumed chicory, and he did not deny that the
reduction of the duty might perhaps cause genuine coffee
to f:e mixed with it to a certain extent. The reduction
of the timber duties might benefit those engaged in
building houses and ships, but were these the masses?
He was, therefore, justified in charging the
Government with scant of principle in their financial
measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the
advocate of direct as opposed to indirect taxation. Taxes
were a part of a man's expenditure which regulated the
rest, and he circumscribed his comforts and enjoyments
according to the amount which he was obliged to con-
tribute under this head. If the revenue were raised by
indirect taxation, and every article could be taxed, every
man according to his expenditure would pay alike. But
it was impossible to tax every commodity which entered
into consumption, and certain articles were therefore
selected, such as tea, tobacco, malt, rug ;r, and various
other articles, and those entered largely into the con-
sumption of the lower orders, and they therefore paid
more than they ought. This was a class which deserved
protection, and the only way to give it was to put a tax
on the price of the articles they produced, thus throw-
ing on the entire community that which this class had
been compelled to pay in advance.—(Hear.) But if by
financial legislation it was so contrived that they could
not thus indemnify themselves, they would be compelled
to work and labour at the rate of the cheapest labour
with which they were obliged to compete, and would
be, moreover, compelled to pay the whole of the tax-
ation out of those reduced wages.—(Hear, hear.)
The policy of the party to which he (Ur. Pricsep)
belonged sought to enable these classes to support
the taxation imposed upon them. The question at every
election had been, and the question at the general elec-
tion would he, whether they should enable the producing
labourer of this country to add the taxation he paid to
the price of the article he produc':d, cc leave him to the
mercy of a competition with the foreigner who produced
under different circumstances.—(Hear.) That was the
true issue, though trio Right Don. Gentleman thought
peeper to treat it as a caiestien of a ss. duty on corn.
What wen the policy which the Right Hon. Gentleman
proposed to substitute? lie asked them to continue the
iticome-tax to avoid the necessity of such a taxation by
means of customs duties as would alone enable the la-
bourer to relieve himself from the burdens to which he
was subject. But the Right Hon. Gentleman would tell
them that if they allowed the taxation to be added to the
price they would throw the burden on the entire popu-
lation, and sacrifice the good of the whole community
for the advantage of the few. But the fallacy of that
was apparent. Every one who was a producer depended
on the price of the particular commodity on which he
was employed for his profits or his wages. Upon
that price, therefore, whether high or low, he
depended for his living. All the producing classes were
in this predicament, and if you told a man belonging to
those classes cheapness will be a benefit to you, among
the rest he would reply, "I must sell before I can buy."
(Hear, hoer.) The best of taxes was a tax on ex-
penditure, whereas the income-tax included in its opera-
tion the profits which a man made in trade, and what be
had laid by also, and proceeded somewhat on the prin-
ciple of the Chinese Government with respect to gamb
ling houses, where 10 per cent. was taken from every '
man's winnings. But if the objection was great to tax- '
ing the rent of the landlord and interest derived from
the funds, the objection was much stronger against the
following schedule, under which the tenant-farmer was '
made to pay on the amount of rout without reference to
his actual profits.—(Hear, hear.) The case of the pro-
fessional man also, who paid on his entire income, was
hard, though he thought that if a professional man
chose to keep up the style of the nobleman he ought to
pay in proportion. He ought to pay on his expendi-
ture, but ought not to be compelled to pay on
that which he had laid by for his family. The con-
trary principle was nearly allied to commuism. The
Right Honourable Gentleman had very properly
commuted the window tax for a tax on houses; but if
he had commuted it fairly, he would have obtained the
same amount, and the total amount of the surplus might
have been applied to any other object, for instance, to
the relief of one•third of the income-tax. To that tax
he objected because its continuance was justified upon
grounds which no longer existed. With respect to coffee,
as he had observed, he protested against bringing Cey-
lon and other colonies in which coffee was cultivated
into competition with Java and other foreign countries,
for, as it took 10 years to bring coffee plantations to
maturity, the proprietors were at all events entitled to
have the duty lowered by degrees, as in the case of sugar.
As to timber, the Right Hon. Gentlemen forgot that the
supply could not be increased ad libitum, hut must be the
work of many years, and the lowering of the duty would
only serve to put mere money into the pockets of the
Baltic pre prietors, on whose will the supply must depend.
Objecting altogether, therefore, to the proposition of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, he should give his cordial
support to the motion of the Right Hon Member for
Stamfori.—(Hear.)
Mr. F. PEEL slid he was quite conscious that there
were a great number of Members in that House with
whose sentiments upon a question like the present it
was much more important fur the Heuse to be acquainted
than with his own; but as the Right lion. Member for
Stamford had stated that they had to make their option
between his plan and the plan of the Government; and
as the conclusion ts which he had brought his mind,
after giving the subject the best consideration of which
he was capable, obliged him to dissect from the amend-
ment of the Right lion. Gentleman, while, at the same
time he was for from being able to express an th,qiialfied
approval of the financial policy of her Majesty's Go-
vsrameet, he hoped he might be permitted to state very
shortly the grounds upon which ho rested his conclusions,
and the vote which he was about to give. Under what
circumstances was it that the proposition for the renewal
of the income-tux was brought before them? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House on
Friday night that he wished to abide by the estimates
which he had made on the first financial statement,
and it would be in the recollection of the House that
the Right Honourable Gentleman estimated the pro-
bable income of the then ensuing and now curreet year,
ending the sth April, 1852, speaking in round numbers,
setting aside altogether the income-tax, at 46.575,0001.,
and the expenditure within the same period at about
50,250,0001., leaving therefore a standing deficit of
about 3,500,000/. True, this deficit underwent consi-
derable diminution in the course of the present year,
because the Government were able to take credit for half
a year of income-tax and half a year's produce of stamp
duties in Ireland, and these together would have the
effect of reducing the deficit in the course of the present
year to about 847,0001, and it was for the purpose of
repairing this deficit, and a deficit of 3,500,0001. in future
years, that the Right Hon. Gentleman invited the House
to consent to the re-imposition of the income-tax for a
further period of three years. He was favourable to the
principle of an income tax.—(Hear.) He was favourable
to it because it combined a system of direct with indirect
taxation, which afforded the means of making the
wealthier classes contribute in proportion to their means
to the revenue required for defraying the public expen-
diture. He did not think that the proportion between
direct and indirect taxation was disturbed by the impo-
sition of an income-tax. He was quite aware that pro-
perty so called was required to bear a very considerable
imposition, in the shape of assessed taxes, of the local
taxation of the country. On the other side of the ac-
count no man could be more sensible than he was of
the immense advantage which the labouring classes of
the country had derived from the recent modifications
its the fiscal, financial, and commercial system.--(Hear,
hear.) No man was more deeply impressed with or
more ready to avow the immense impetus given to the
manufacturing industry and commercial enterprise of the
country by taking off the duties that weighed with un-
due severity upon the springs of industry, as they were
called, and the sources of employment. What had been
the magnitude and extent of the changes is the course
of nitle years? Between 1842 and the close of 1850 they
had
-witted taxes upon their linen manufactures, upon
.
the raw material of manufactures, and upon the food of
the people, to no lessen extent than 1012 millions sterling.
Hon. Gentleme
n could see that for themselves in the re-
turns moved for by his Hon. Friend the Member for
Liverpool. Well, had that great reduction of taxation
been attended with any corresponding diminution of
produce in the great branches of revenue out of which
those duties, supposing they had remained, would have
been paid? So Ist from the produce of the Customs
and Excise, out of which they were paid, being reduced,
they were now as productive in 1651 as they were in
1842, before those great changes were commenced. In
1842 the produce of the Customs nod Excise was
36,140,0004, in 1849 it was 37,271,0004, and iu 1850
the gross produce, not deducting those charges which
w
o that so far from there being
to the re-
70enrue
ei,ngc,nasrr3e7d
,othoeolc.,ollection ia its way
a reduction to the extent of 10,500,0001., as might
have been expected, the produce bad increased nearly
1,200,0004—(11ear, hear.) He would say that a simple
fact of that kind spoke language more forcibly than any
that could flow from the most gifted lips—it told of the
increase of employment and of industry; of the increased