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

THE BUDGET.

RE-IMPOSITION OF THE INCOME-TAX.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Com-
mittee of Supply.
Mr. HERRIES 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, granted by two Aete
passed in the sixth year of 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, and 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
ha had to offer, to coincide with his amendment
he begged to say that he 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 the 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.) Ho 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 ail
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 year 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 23,0001. for the
expenses of the Kafir war.—(Hear, 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.—(Hoar, hear.) He
expected, therefore, that it was the income-tax which he
intended to propose, and that it was intended to propose
it for three years.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir Charles
Wood.) He 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.) He trusted that he should be
excused from referring to the fact that this deficiency of
3,800,0001. 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. In 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 he 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 Lard'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 of men of the highest eminence, who had
filled the most responsible offices of the state, ae
to the peculiar character of this tax.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not propose to use the extracts which
he should teke the liberty of reading as an argumentum
ad hominem, he used them because they contatned in
themselves expressions of sound truth and judgment,
which he 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 to asons
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. Labouchore,
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 difficulty.—(Hear, hear.) Again, in
1845, ho 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.
—(Bear, hear.) Then, again, when the Noble Lord
asked for a continuance of the tax ia 1848, ho
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 for a
further period.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Labouchere, now
the President of the Board of Trade, also said, in 18
" God forbid that, under the present difficulties
of the country, they should require the Iloh‘e
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 iu en inquisitorial manner,
and attended with vexations proceedings infinitely.
more annoying than the amount of money taken

from the people's pockets."—(lLar, hear.) Now, as
the country was not new tes!or the preseure of those
difficaities which estiet,d at that time, these arguments
applied with tenfold force against the re-imposition of
the tax this year. Lord Howick said that on the prin-
ciple of justice and sound policy he was of opinion that
the Howe ought to restrict the imposition of a tax so
exesdingly odious as that oroposed by Sir R. Peel.
" They were told," said that Noble Lord, " that taxetten
ought to be equal, but was any thifg more monstrously
unequal than a property-tax?"—(ticar, 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
necte,sity, and to the prospect of a failing revenue in
giving any degree of support to the tax; he hoped,
then fore, he might challenge that Right Hon. Gentle-
man's vote on this occasion in favour of his amendment.
He out 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 e 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? Ho himself was but too strongly
impressed with the fact that the tax was vexatious
and injurious. He knew that the farmer, who was losing
money every day; the merchant, whose affairs were 'sub-
ject to the inquisition of the tux, 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. Ho 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.) He was
quite aware of the difficulty of adjusting that tax.—
(Hear, hear.) As a temporary tax ho believed that
nobody would hesitate to accede to it, and
ke 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)—and he could of his own know-
ledge say that it was only intended as a temporary im-
position to meet a temporary exigeney.—(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 he would tell him
that if he did it would be torn to tatters before it passed
through the House.—(Hear, hear,) He would now
ask Hon. Gentlemen who ware 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. Herries) 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, with all its
wrongs, with all its injustice, he should most certainly
vote against the motion.—(Hear.) Had the great man
who originally imposed that tax been now
amongst them he (Mr. Herries) 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 eln-it 2,2oo,oool.—(Dissent from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.) The Right Hon. Gentleman shook his
head. fie had himself stated 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 2,000,0001. 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 be 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. It

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 ticeu,tomed, but still it was
one which he 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
what new windows they pleased without being subjected
to any additional duty. If such a boon were ac-
companied by the removal of 1,560,0001. 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
be (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 tiff irding 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: Herries) 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 ho would ask the Noble
Lord how, consistently with his duty, at a period when
there was no danger of foreign war or of internal disaf-
fection, with a surplus in hand which afforded the means
of materially reducing the'property-tax, he could propose
the continuance 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. Gentleman had fairly put the question be-
fore the House, and in accordance with the expecta-
tions ho had formed on a previous evening. But in
quoting his opinions the Right Hen. Gentleman had only
taken short extracts, and had 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 had 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 he made he 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 his public conduct was inconsistent with
that declaration.—(llear, hear.) He granted the tax
had been imposed for a temporary purpose, and in
order to make up a deficiency which had occurred in the
revenue. The Right Hon. Gentleman who proposed it
in 1846 stated it was for a temporary purpose, and that
it had answered. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he
did not ask the House then for the income-tax to meet
any want or supply any deficiency, but merely to carry
out a great experiment in taxation which he was mak-
ing. The Right-Honourable Gentleman opposite (:dr.
Herries) seemed to doubt, what he (ihe Chancellor of
the Exchequer) was saying. With the pet-mission of
the House ne would ref r to Sir Robert Peel's speech
upon the occasion.—(Hsar, hear.) These 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 during 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 pro side a surp us, but to enable us to
make those great experiments which we have corn-
menced."—(Hear, hear.) Again, the Right Hon. Ba-
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, atter 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 onjectionablo 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 R. Peel had made
on the subject of the sugar duties. But what had be
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. Ido not object to it on those 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
groat 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 repsae He had
said on that occasion that the ground on which he had
opposed the imposition of the imcome-tax in the year
1842 was that that tax was too high a price to pay for
the benefit they were to receive trona the changes of
taxation which had then been proposed ; but ho had
stated in the year 1842, in oppogiug that tax, that if an
alteration were made in the duties on corn, on sugar, on
timber, and on other great articles of consumption, he
should be ready to vote for direct taxation and siren for
the income-tax. Nov, those duties had been repealed,
and circumstances which would justify the imposition or
the retention of the income-tax had occurred since, the
year 1842, and he had therefore with perfect consistency
proposed a renewal of the income-tax in the year 1848,
and ho proposed it at the present time. He believed
that that course was in perfect conformity with the policy
which had been avowed and adopted by the late Sir R.
Peel. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herriss) had said
that that was the first legitimate opportunity they had en-
joyed of repealing or reducing the income-tax; because
they had at present for the first time, while dealing with
that question, a surplus revenue and a state of national
prosperity. But they had the benefit of a similar sur-
plus and of a similar national prosperity in the year
1545. The Right, lion. Gentleman might then have

proposed the total abolition of the income-tax. The oh'
jeeter\ a to the i.-:equality and injustice of the tax, and, Wei,
the Icau,is to which it waa calculated to give rise, Oa
;moo Ili strong then as they were at the present day, an
ye t the Hon. Gentleman hurl proposed at that Pe:
rind that the tx shouhl be swept away. He should qv'
ther remind th=, Hight Hon. Gentleman that it would bet,
a cinch no- re r4oi,factory pr.7ceding to sweep it awityll
once, it toot were possible, than to propose that it should
be to laced by the aniount of 2d. in the pound. In al
year 1S Sir R. Peel and the Eloue of Commons had
thought proper—and wisely as he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequsr) believsd—to renew the tax for a limited pe'
rind; and they were at present reaping the edvantages.
of the amended system of taxation which had by that
means heen seeur, d. He hoped, too, that in the course
of three years from the present time they would agate
he enjoying similar advantages, and that it would
then be open to them again to deal with the income''
tax in wha'ever way they rnisht think fit. '°
seemed to be supposed in some quarters that he 019
making inroads on the national faith and credit
by the coarse which he at present proposed to pursue.
An Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that 13°
would destroy the credit of the country by a remissioa
of taxes to the amount of 1,536,000/. But Lord Stolle,'
had state] openly and candidly—and he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) respected the Noble Lord for the
frankness of his declaration—that he proposed to reduce
the income-tax by an amount of one-half or one-third;
and the Right Honourable Gentleman at present propose'
that it should be reduced from 7d. to scl. in the pound'
The Right Hon. Gentleman would, therefore, surrender
taxes to the extent of 1,560,000/.; while he (the Chancel'
for of the Exchequer) proposed that they should be re'
dated by a somewhat smaller amount. Under these air'
cumstances Hon. Gentlemen opposite could have 0°-
right to charge her Majesty's Government with die:
honesty in their present financial proposals, or to say the'
they were running a risk of destroying the credit of the
country; or, at all events, the dishonesty would be as
great on the opposite side of the House as on that on which
he had the honour to sit. It had also been said that he
was endangering the national faith, by proposing
0 that-
out of a reduction of 1,535,0001. not lesiethan 1,100,001.
should be a reduction of direct taxation. The HO.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley, we believe) had
complained that her Majesty's Government were re'
dating direct taxation, and that in that respect they
were not acting on their own principle, that reductione,
of taxation ought to take place on the great articles 0'
consumption, or on the raw materials of industry. The t
Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they would rim'
the national credit by the adoption of such a systems"
But that was the very system proposed by the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Her
ries); so that between the two Gentlemen, whom he
should consider as the highest authorities amen the party
opposite, on all commercial and financial questions,
there was a direct discordance of opinion upon that
point. The whole argument of the Right Hon. Gentle'
man was founded on the supposition that the proposal be
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had submitted to the
House was a proposal for a permanent income-tax; hat
he had not said one syllable to that effect, and no pror
sal he had made could bear that construction.—(Hear,
hoer.) He had invariably spoken of the tax as one in";
posed in order to cover removals or modifications 0:
duties which unduly interfered with the development
of the national resources. He then proposed the re:.
newel of the income-tax as it steed for a limited period'
of three years. He was well aware, and so was "11°'
Right Hon. Gentleman, of the difficulty, and the ,
most impossibility, as the Right Hon. Gentleman himself.
appeared to think, of modifying the schedules in
believeda
manner which would he fair to all parties. ile
the Right Hon. Gentleman had somewhat misrepresented
the intentions of Sir R. Peel upon that subject, because:
he remembered to have heard that Right Hon. Barone'
say that he thought it would be most dangerous to et'
tempt to modify the schedules. The House would be"
come persuedee of the difficulty of such a task when they
remembered what opposite suggestions had been made
upon the matter. One gentleman had stated the WO;
Lice of Schedule B; another had stated the injustice 0'
Schedule D; and Isis Hon. and Gallant Friend the Mar
her for Lincoln (Colonel Sihthorp) had shown the iDjilS.
Lice of a portion of Schedule E. But if complaints well
made of the injustice of the tax to all the parties in:
eluded in its operation, it might so happen that it we'
not very unjust to any of them.—(Hear, hear, and °
laugh.) He would recommend Hon. Gentlemen, before
they made up their minds that any one schedule
shoal be reduced, to consider what effect that reduce
tion might have on some of the other schedule::
which might be altered with equal or even sviis
greater propriety. But he thought it better to postpa:
any discussion upon those points until they should eon"'
to consider the various schedules in the Bill. 14°,
one who had ever had to deal with the imago',
tax heel found it possible to alter the schedules. The
great man, Mr. Pitt. who had imposed and continued the
income-tax— [An HON. MEMBER here observed that the' -•
was in time of war]—it had been originally imposed in
time of war; but Mr. Pitt had maintained the schedule!
on the ground toat they could not be properly or just',
altered, and on that ground he had opposed such If
alteration when proposed by Mr. Addington in time •
peace. Mr. Pitt had on that occasion rested his oppel
tion to the change on the grounds of its injustice and
the necessity of the case. He (the Chancellor of 0.4
Excl.), quer) proposed that the tax should be continne-.
for three years. He thought it most desirable that, fat
the purpose of enabling them to make other reducti°,le
5,
of taxation, it should be continued for that period; and 'I
seemed to him most inexpedient that so large an amount
of taxation should depend upon an annual vote. 1311
ho would not preclude the Right Hon. Gentlemen
from repealing the tax next year, if he should OW,
fit, and if he should at that time be holding the oMu''.
which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at pre
t;/
sent so unworthily filled. It would no doubt have bee;
the easier course for him to have simply proposed tbee
the tax should be renewed for a single year; but 11,_
did not think that, with his opinions upon the subject:
it would have been honest on his part to have taice',
that course. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said tbe,.
if the tax were to be continued for three years it shoe!'
necessarily be extended to Ireland. But ho (the Ch f%
cellor of the Exchequer) said directly the reverse.
did not at that moment remember what were the precise'
grounds on which Sir Robert Peel in introducing 111 •
tax had stated that Ireland ought to be exempted folt
its operation; but he felt assured that any reason wbiej
could then have been urged for such a course existed
still more strongly at present. Ireland had not thela.
gone through the fearful calamity by which she be
since been visited ; property in Ireland had not the.„
been depreciated in value; and the owners and culti‘
vatora of the soil in Ireland had not then been recover:
ing from a pressure unexampled in modern times in and
country in the world. It would, therefore, be cruel eng
unjust to attempt to impose at present upon Ireland:,
tax from which she had then been exempted. An BeP
Gentleman had said the other night that he (the Cbar
cellar of the Exchequer) would perpetuate the necesel
for the income-tax by removing the duties from article,
of consumption. But Le did not propose to take aw%
any such duties. He merely proposed to reduce 410
duties on three articles; and lie believed that after tilt;
reductions the revenue to be do: ived from them would agel
revive. He proposed to reduce the duty on coffee, which
he believed would reach its former amount under tny
change. The tax on timber would, he believed, also re:.
vive under the reduction of duty which he proposed..
And although the amount he proposed to remove frol
the duty on windows and houses was, to a certain exteOj
a total loss, it should be remembered that the propos
house tax would be a continually increasing tax. Eye%
body was aware how greatly the number of houses W 0
being increased in the neighbourhood of all great towns
and cities, and must see that a tax on houses would De',
cessarily go on augmenting from year to year. He de
nied that he could fairly be accused of sacrificing tR,
revenue, and rendering the continuance of the income
tax unavoidable, by the manner in which ho proposed!,
deal with the duties on articles of consumption; and
said, on the contrary, that Hon. Gentlemen opposite we'
themselves open to that charge. Let them look to the VW„
great articles with the duties on which ho proposed the
they should deal. The first proposal he made was a redtle°.
time of the almost prohibitive duty on foreign auger'
He had objected in the year 1845 to the mode in which
the late Sir R. Peel hau at that time dealt with the sugel
duties. He had pointed out the fact that by reduont
the duty on colonial sugar. and increasing the del oa,
foreign sager, the Right Hon. Baronet was sacritien3ger
certain amount of revenue without any chance of ever
.seeing it restored, and that that was, in fact, the villY;
obtain a minimum of revenue, because the absence of '°;,
reign competition would prevetit a reduction of price
h 0
an increase of consumption. But he should add that-
although he objected to that proposal of Sir R. Peel ill
the year 1845, the Right lion, Baronet had, in his °pi'
nion, amply redeemed that temporary error, and Oval.
One who know what had since occurred upon that sub'
ject must be aware of the infinite difficulties with which'
ttw Right Hon. Baronet had had to contend. Lookino
hesitationate4 to ti hewt h whole
most olin xt
eccoms 13
commercial policy of Sir R. Peel, he had .I.'
cordiall'l2
ahpisprfiorbmatbioenli.ef
Thetha sugar d
titwase:tc
ti
nth.
had
b been
altered in the year 1846; and the effect of lice
alteration had been a considerable increase in the re/f:
useduring
the following year. That was a case of t""'
renewal of a duty; and he had no doubt gilt
ri
that it the Act of 1846 had been left unchange"
the revenue derived from sugar would be far greatett.
than it was at the present moment. But that
Act had been altered in consequence of the reP°r,
of a Committee, of which the late Lord George Be_1„
tinck had been either the chairman, or at least a prow:
neat member; and in deference to the expressed or
nions of that Committee he had felt himself bound to in,
troduce the Sugar Bill of 1845, by which the duty on e,e; •
lonial sugar was reduced, and the protection to ti
colonial interest was still farther extended. lie did ncs
d
repent of that measure, he believed it to have works f
remarkably well; and he found that the consumption °.a
sugar had increased by not less than 50 per cent. eiltbit-.
the last six years. But that measure necessarily 1301./0)°
ipptioooarsultnietedehrast;a.l3oipmereeontueai
amount;
t,ele
aaaagsnttadiawnfs,:imiriicnuthhc
ahtththereeesruel vt eHn uo en
.wGo ue
nl dt l re emaec..„
inh
ohlra
ase answerableof s taasmhpes w?
as.
v vebpe
proposed a reduction of one-eighth in stamps of
t
1-n a•
10 most amount, and then that the duty should be earl'',
up uniformly un the ad valorem principle. But 11°
Gentlemen opposite said that, although they apPr°lo 1
-0
of that principle, they would not allow him to receive 6-
large an amount of revenue as that which he had 101;-
posed; and there had scaordingly been a dinahluti°-
of the revenue which contributed to prevent theme
from taking tiff the income-tax. Then, again, there
had lesen a proposal for a total repeal of the pap-r
duties. The Hon. Gentleman the Member 1°
Buckinghamshire had on that occasion eloql-11111st
11,1
supported that proposal; and how, therefore, he Iv° I,
task, could the Hon. Gentleman or his party rePr°ll:o
'lira (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with -
undue reduction of taxation, after he had himself 953;
ported a proponlfor the total repeal of t 1474 aln"l4l°