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

LONDON, TUESDAY

would have been satisfied with levying the duty not on
the number wi:tdow;„ but on the l:Atinj:v,..lne of
the house. But he.was not contented with substituiing
that new mode of l'2vyin,rs the duty proposed to accoaq-
puny the suhF,titution by a loki3, first to tte or-V:lf, of
three-fourth:, el' a million, out than to the extTnt of

1,150,0001. It was obvions that that great reduction of
taxation would nut bsaefin at all events, the working
cies:ma-0.1cm., bear.) The owners and occupic's of
the better class of houses. areounting to 500,000 out
of 3,500,000, would be benefited, and these alone. The
Right lion. Gentleman quoted Mr. Mill's " Elements
of Politico! Economy" ist support of his proposition;
but what did Mr. Still say—that the house-tax was
ono of the first and most equitable taxes that could be
imposed, for this reason, that it was paid by persons
in proportion to their power of expenditurs. It was
quite clear that a man's power of expenditure was a
better test of his ability than his income. Instances
might be daily seen of a nominal income the whole
amount not being in the power of the party to dispose of.
They had heard enough of the injustice and impolicy of
the income•tax ; and no one could deny the difference
between a life and a permanent income. But there was
a still broader distinction between these and the more
precarious contingencies of fortune, health, reputation,
and employment. Men in that position were bound by
considerations of prudence, duty, and foresight, not
merely to lay by a portion of their income for the pur-
pose of providing for those who were to coma after them,
to start them in life with a prospect of success, but they
were also bound to lay by something for that stage of
their own lives when years declined and health decayed.
But what was the proposition of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer? To make these parties pay a most unfair
and unequal proportion. He could not give even a qua-
lified assent to that. At the same time he looked at the
income-tax as a great lever for elevating the social
and moral condition of the working classes,
He looked forward to a long career of on-
ward progress in that path of social improve-
ment on which they had entered; and he should be
most loth and reluctant to abandon that great instru-
ment by which so much good had been effected, and
which, if they were to effect what remained to be done,
they must maintain. He allowed for the great pressure
on the Government; but he could not say that he thought
they had made the best use of their power in the re-im-
position of the income-tax. The task was not so diffi-
cult, and they had only to follow out and apply on a
larger and broader manner the great principles of the
system of commercial and financial legislation which
had been commenced in 1842, and they would find now,
as then, that it would open up new channels for the in-
dustry and labour of the country, extend and widen the
area of our foreign markets, and bring within the reach
of the poor and bumble au increased amount of the
comforts and conveniences of life, diffuse peace and con-
tentment over the country, range the working classes on
the side of peace and good government, and by so doing
give increased strength and stability to the institutions
of the country, which ho valued not for themselves, but
for the sake of the advantages and blessings they en-
joyed under them.—(Load cheers.)
Mr. T. BARING having complimented the preceding
speaker on his able speech, proceeded to say that as the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointedly alluded to
him, he felt it necessary to trouble the House with a few
words. The Right Hon. Gentleman, in stating that
his real surplus would be only 612,0001., added that he
was ashamed .to call it a surplus, but that it was dimi-
nished by the concessions he had made to the owners and
occupiers of land. Since that he had:reformed his Bud-
get, sweeping away those concessions, and his surplus,
instead of being increased, was further diminished.—
(Hear, bear.) Ho (Mr. Baring) believed that Govern-
ment had diminished their surplus and altered their Bed-
get is compliance with pressure from without; and so be-
lieving, he had called it the act of a weak Government.
Ho should have passed the Right Hon. Gentleman's
speech without notice, but when his supporters praised
his speech as a substitute for a Budget, and compared it
with Lord Stanley's, ho then had remarked that the ten-
dency of the speech was not to sustain public credit, but
to buy popularity by the removal of taxation. The
Right lion. Gentleman had alluded to the declaration of
Sir Robert Pe el that he did not wish to maintain a large
surplus because he was convinced that the House of
Commons would make any deficiency good and maintain
public credit. True, but ho (Mr. Baring) had confidence
not only in the Right Honourable Baronet's intentions,
but his power.—(Elear, hear.) Now he had the fullest
confidence in the intentions of the Noble Lord opposite;
but certainly he had not the same confidence in his
power.—(Hear, hear.) He should not trouble the House
as to the nature of the vote he was about to give, further
than that he was one of the old fashioned people who
believed that it Wl3 important to have a large surplus.
He was sorry to have heard gentlemen express a dif-
ferent opinion, believing that a surplus was necessary to
maintain our position abroad and our institutions at
home. Therefore he confessed that he did not agree with
his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Stamford in re-
ducing so much of the income-tax.—(A laugh.) He
had not been aware of his Right Hon. Friend's proposal;
he had only seen his resolution, and found that he was
contented with 350,0001. surplus. One Hon. Gentleman
wished to take off the window-tax, and the other would
reduce the income-tax. He preferred the latter, as he
believed that it would benefit the masses more then the
former. Tho Right Hon. Gentleman opposed the in-
come-tax at first beCause it was proposed by Sir Robert
Peel merely to make up a deficiency. He (Mr. T.
Baring) could not reconcile that with what he now
said about the importance of having a surplus fund.
The Right Hon. Gentleman admitted the injustice in-
volved in the levying of the income-tax, but defended
the tax on the ground that its operation was unjust to all.
No one could complain, because every one was in-
jured. Did any Chancellor of the Exchequer ever before
defend a tax on such a ground as that?—(Hear, hear.)
Not only was the tax unjust, but it was the cause of
much fraud, that for that reason alone it ought to be
abolished. As one of the commercial class he could not

look at the return under Schedule D without being con-
vinced that great fraud was practised.—(Hear, hear.)
Since 1846 there had been a diminution in the tax to the
amount of 6,000,0001.; and since 1843, the year in which
it was first imposed, of 8,000,0001. They were in this
dilemma, either the commercial prosperity so much
boasted of had failed to increase profits, or the greatest
frauds had been practised; and one of the strongest ob-
jections to this tax was, that the honest man paid it,
while the dishonest escaped.—(Hear, hear.) He would
not trouble the House with many observations. He
wished distinctly to state his conviction that without a
surplus the country could not be safe.—(Hear.) He
did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel)
that by leaving money in the hands of the people they
obtained as good security for the public creditor as they
could in any other manner. The public creditor wished
to see not only that the country • was able, but that it
was willing, to fulfil its engagements; and it was no
satisfaction to him to tell him that the debtor kept
the money in his pocket and was able to pay. The Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down had very ably stated
his views with regard to what had occurred since 1542.
In a great deal that the Hon. Gentleman said he (Mr.
Baring) entirely concurred, more especially with regard
to the edvantaees of dividing the taxation between direct
and indirect, if the direct taxation could be made just.
An income-tax was a tax for an emergency. There was
no more dangerous emergency than that arising out of
a deficiency, and Sir Robert Peel proposed the tax of
1842 on that ground. He mast hero observe that it was
not fair to coopers one year with another without taking
every thing into consideration; neither was it right to re-
gard increased exports as a proof of prosperity, though
ho admitted that, to a certain extent it was. He could
have wished that the Government had proposed to main-
tain the whole of the surplus, to continue the income-tax
for one year, affording time for considering how it might
he modified so as to make it just, and then, if there were
a great surplus next year, to leave that surplus to he ap-
plied either in reduction of general taxation, or to the re-
moval of the income-tax. Although from the Exhibition,
and other temporary causes, there might he for a time
groat prosperity, yet it should not be forgotten that the
difference between the revenue of 1843 and that of 1847
was a fall in the tatter period of 2,000,0001. in the ordi-
nary revenue of the country; and he (Mr. T. Baring)
would not blink the question, that they ought not to re-
duce taxation unless they were quite convinced that
what was remitted would not be required.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had begged hie friends nut
to propose the reduction of small taxes, but rather to
deal with taxes affecting articles of I.irger consumption.
Did he suppose that if he repealed the window-tax one
year, and some other tax the next, he would ever be
able to propose the reduction of the duty on tea? Be
agreed with the Hea. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) that it
would be worth while to retain the income-tax, in order
to reduce the duty on tea to the extent of ls.; but he did
not see how that object could be promoted by taking off
the window.tax. Had Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who
so es etitatiously called:themselves the friends of the
people, ever proposed a reduction of the duty on tea—
tic article which entered so largely into the consumption
of the people, and upon which there was levied a
duty of 300 per cent.?—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had told the House the other night, why he
did nos propose to reduce that duty; it was because it
was not a protective duty. It entered, however, into the
consumption of everybody. There was not a ploughboy
who trod the heavy clay—(Laughter)—and there was
not a shepherd who climbed the barren hills—(Renewed
laughter)--there was not a soldier who had returned from
a foreign station bat what consumed tea.—(Continued
laughter.) And if he wished to indulge in the language
of sympathy for the poor for a special political purpose,
he could " tell the reason why" no reduction of the tea
duty was proposed—it was because it would be titenefit
to all classes and an injury to none.—(Hear, hear.) It
would depreciate no British property, it would rum no
British colony, it would sacrifice no British capital, it
would reduce the wages of no British labourer.—(Cheers.)
That wail " the reason why" there was to be no reduc-
tion of the duty on tea; but, instead of that, the window
tax was to be repealed.—(Bear, hear.) Ile must declare
that he could not support the Right Hun. Gentleman's
financial policy. He saw in it nothing large or compre-
hensive; he sesv in it no justice to those whom the Right
I-lon. Gentleman admitted to be suffering; he saw in it a
want of regard for the public creditor; and, believing as
he did, that it had a partial character, a popular pur-
pose, and would not tend to benefit the country at large,
he should rote for the amendment of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stamford, with the condition
that a reduction of the income-tax was the best step that
could he taken.—(Cheers )
Mr. WILSON thought that the reasons assigned by
the Hon. Member for objecting to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's plan ought to have induced him to dissent
even mere etrongiy from the amendment. The Hon.
Gentleman had somewhat misrepresented what the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said when the income-tan
was originally proposed by Sir R. Peel. What the
Right Hon. Gentleman really said was, that although he
disliked no income-tau, he would not, object to its unpo-
sitiou if it were used as the means of enabling the Go-