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

SUN, LONDON,

• amount of wages at the disposition of the working
elassrs; and it told also of the increased comrnand which
• they had required over the comforts, the dorevenionces,
and the necesearier of life.—(Hear, hear.) But there
• teas also another test—they were fable to ascertain ac-
curately the increased and increasing amount of the in-
dustry and labour of the country that bad b• en expended
in the production of articles intended for the foreign
consumer. What was the case with regard to their
foreign trade? From 1835 to 1542 it had remained
nearly stationary. The average amount of the declared
value of their exports was about 49.500,0001. sterling.
In 1842 commenced the great change in their commer-
cial legislation, and from that period down to the pre-
sent time there had been a rapid and progressive increase
in the declared value of the foreign trade. In 1843 it
was 52,250 000/ ; in 1347, it was 53,750,0001.; in 1849,
it was 63,500,000/.; and in the year just concluded,
1850, it exceeded 71,000,0001. sterling.—(Hear, hear.)
But while he made all these concessions he was anxious
the House should bear in mind that they had
still en enormous revenue from indirect taxation,
and that which was indirect, to be productive, must
be laid upon the chief articles of the subsistence of the
people. Take, for instance, the Customs revenue. The
produce of that was 22,000,000/. sterling, and the House
should be aware that of that large sum no less an amount
than 20,000,000!., or 10-11ths, was the produce of the
duties levied upon seven articles, which were articles of
subsistence of the great mass cf the people. If they
took tea, coffee, or spirits (he meant foreign and colonial
rum and brandy), wine, tobacco, and corn—for although
the duty on corn was only a nominal one of one abiding,
yet such was the demand and such the consumption, that
it produced an appreciable amount to the public revenue
—these seven articles yielded 20,000 000/. out of the
22,000,0001. of Customs revenue. He did not know how
many tertieha there were in the tariff—lie dared to say
some hundreds, but all of them put together produced
hardly more than the cost of collection. So it would al-
ways be; and if they placed back those 450 articles that
had been struck out by the Act of 1845 they would
hardly pay the cost of collection. Whet was the infer-
ence he drew from that? If they wore to raise five mil-
lions additional taxation, and not raise it by means of a
direct tax, but by an indirect one, they must impose that
indirect tax upon one or more of the prime articles of
subsistence ot the people—they must reverse the prin-
ciple of their recent commercial legislation, and re-
volt to that system of production which fur so long
a time they had permitted to obstruct and retard the
growth, and progress, and development of the resources
of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let the advantage of
the income-tax be what it might. the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Stamford would prevent their
taking it into consideration at all; he would stop them
on the threshold, and why? Because, he said, the faith
of Parliament was pledged on the subject—that Parlia-
ment had given its good faith to discontinue the income-
tax after the expiration of a limited period. Granted.
True, the Right Hon. Gentleman was willing to allow
them just es much of the income-tax as would bring
the income level with the expenditure; but that he could
not do without doing violence to his principle, which
went to the extent that the duties levied under the in-
come-tax were granted and renewed for temporary pur-
poses and for a limited period, and that Parliament was
bound to abide by its declared intention to discontinue
the income-tax. Now he must enter a preliminary ob-
jection against the statement that Parliamsnt could enter
into any compact with the people, fettering the discre-
tion of some future Parliament on the subject of finance,
and binding it not to entertain any proposition for rais-
ing any portion of the public revenue in a reamer which
was most in harmony with the real interests of the
country, and, it necessary, by means of an income-
tax. A similar argument was urged in 1842 against
the imposition of the income-tax at all, It
was said that the income-tax by common un-
derstanding was reserved for the great emer-
gency of war—that it was a proposition never heard of,
entertained, or conceded in time of peace, and should to
reserved for those great occasions when the relations of
this country with foreign nations were either altogether
broken off or temporarily suspended. And the answer
made to that argument in support of the Right Hon.
Gentleman's resolution was that Parliament could judge
of the exigency for itself—if it thought it necessary, in
order to maintain the public credit of the country, and
to keep up the establishments in a proper state of effi-
ciency, that it should be imposed. Do not let Parlia-
ment be deterred from acting up to its duty by the
fallacious, delusive argument of a compact entered into
for fettering its discretion and binding its freedom of
action.—(Hear, hear.) He was not at all prepared to
admit the facts involved in the resolution of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, still more to admit the inferences he
drew from them. Tho Right Hon. Gentleman cited ex-
tracts from individual Members, but he would say they
were far from carrying out the conclusions to which he
wished to arrive. He (Mr. Peel) thought, when he
spoke of the declared intentions "of Parliament, that he
would have been able to point out some act which would
speak in an effective manner the sense of the Legislature.
Ho wondered he did not refer to the proceedings in
the Parliament of 1816; in that year Lord Baxley
then Mr. Vansittart, as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
brought forward a proposition for imposing the income-
tax. That proposition excited great opposition, and the
chief ground was the common understanding of the
country that the income-tax should not be renewed after
the expiration of the war and the conclusion of a trea'y
of peace. The opposition brought forward a number of
speeches from individual members of Government; but
the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to be bound by
them, and showed that Pitt, Addington, and Grenville
had
,mortgaged the produce of these duties for several
years after the peace, for the purpose of repaying loans
borrowed during the war. The opposition was trium-
phant; the income-tax was rejected, and why ? Because
the opposition was able to point to a section in the Act
of 1803, which provided that the income-tax was to be
continued so loag as the war lasted, and was not to be
afterwards renewed. The Right Honourable Gentle-
man brought nothing of the kind forward, and he
also disputed, as he had said, the inference he drew
from his facts. He said the tax had reference to a
temporary emergency, the expense of the China war and
the remedying some of the financial blunders of the Ad-
ministration that retired in 1841. But he did not say
that these were the grounds on which the Govern-
ment themselves rested the imposition of the incense-tax,
and he (Mr. Peel) could confidently state that the real
financial_pelicy ot the Government of 1841, as developed
in 1845, was, that by means of an income-tax the Go-
vernment might be enabled to take off taxes infinitely
more oppressive, burdensome, and vexatious, than the
income-tax. The principle of the financial policy of the
Government was, that by means of the income-tax they
might effect great reforms in the financial and commer-
cial policy of the country. Tho first leading principle
was to take off the duty on the food of the people, and
then the duties on the importation of the raw materials
of their manufactures—these principles were acted upon
with great vigour and great aptitude of design, but he
did not say that the policy was brought to a completion:
they took of" the duty on sheep and cotton-wool on the
express ground that they formed the material of the chief
staple manufactures, but he could not say the policy was
completed while there remained a heavy protective diffe-
rential duty, amounting to sd. per cubic toot, on timber,
which was ono of the naate:ials of their manufactures. lie
could not say that the policy was complete which took off
the duty on sugar on the ground that it entered into the
subsistence of the mass of the people, white there still
remained the heavy duty of 2s. 21d. per pound on tea,
amounting to 200, 300, or 400 per cant. on the cheaper
sorts, which were those consumed by the lower class.—
(Hear, hear.) Still less would he say that the policy
was complete which took off the excise duty on glass, and
by the removal of excise restrictions gave a rapid de-
velopment to that manufacture, while there remained a
duty, characterised by Adam Smith as one of the four
necessaries of life, taxed in his time by the British Go-
vernment, a most important article which entered into a
great variety of manufactures—he meant soap.—(Hear,
bear.) It' these were the temporary exigencies to which
the Right Honourable Gentleman referred, he could
not say that they had passed away, and he could
not vote for the resolution on such grounds. He
should give his vote in favour of the renewal of
the income-tax to enable the Government to carry
out these reforms to completion. That led him to
consider what were the inducements held out by the
Government to obtain the consent of the House to the
imposition of the income-tax. They, were of a threefold
character—they want to repair a deficit, to retain a sur-
plus, and to remit taxation. First, as to repairing a de-
ficit, there was this advantage in taking the discussion
now, instead of at an earlier period of the session, that
when the first financial statement was made they were
obliged to take upon the credit and faith of the Govern-
ment the correctness of the estimates laid before them.
Since then the House had been in Committee of Ways
and Moans; estimates had been agreed to in Committee
of Supply, end they had now ascertained that, but for
the income-tax, there would be a deficit of 800,000/.
With respect to the appropriation of the surplus, he
agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose that econo-
mically there was no gain in paying such a tax as a
tax upon soap, or a protective duty on the import of
timber, to apply the produce to the reduction of the
National Debt, because taxes of that sort took out of
the pockets of the public more than they brought into
the Exchequer. At the same time there was
a great moral advantage in the determined re-
solution of the House to deal with that enormous
amount of public debt, and to show that they were
willing to make great sacrifices to obtain such a re-
duction.—(Hear, hear.) Not that ho entertained any
idea that public opinion would ever go to the extent of
repudiating the payment of that debt. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer hal told them that five-sixths of the
fundholders of the country received dividends not ex-
ceeding 501. a year, and he might have stated a fact
still more striking. The British Association, in its
meeting in Edinburgh, read, a statistical paper, in which
the fundholders were divided into twelve classes, ac-
cording to the amounts they received. It appeared that
there had been, between the years 1831 and 1848, a con-
siclerabla and large diminution in the number of fund-
holders in every one of these classes except one; and
what was that? The class of persons receiving less
than 5/. A proof, not so much that the working classes
were making accumulations of money, as that they re-
garded the public debt as a safe investm:nt for their
savings.—(Bear, hear.) No doubt the great point in the
scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the re-
duction of taxation that he proposed. He would say
nothing of the equalization of the duty on foreign and
colonial cofft e, and the reduction of the duty on foreign
timber, because ho apprehended that nobody would raise
an objection to them, stud probably the Right Hon.
Gentleman could not have laid his finger on two ar•
ticks more deserving of the consideration of tho House;
but the loss in these was small compared with
what ho proposed to abandon with respect to
the window-tax, sad it was with regard to that
part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's policy he was com-
pelled to give a qualified and hesitating assent. He
should have thought that the Right non. Gentleman

TUESDAY

'`)N,

would have been satisfied with levying the duty not on
the number of the windows, but on the letting value of
the lieuse. But he was not contented with substitudng
that Lew mode of levying the duty proposed to accom-
pany the substitution by a loss, first to the extent of
three-fourths of a million, and then to the extent of
1,150,000/. 1,, was obvious that that great reduction of
taxation would not benefw at all events, the working
classes.—(llear, hear.) The owners and occupiers of
the hewer class of houses, amounting. to 500,000 out
of 3 500,000, would be benefited, and these alone. The
Right Hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Mill's " Elements
of Political Eeonoray" in support of his proposition;
but what did Mr. ;dill say—that the house tax was
one of the first and most equitable taxes that could be
imposed, for this reason, the: it was paid by persons
in proportion to their power of expenditure. It was
quite clear that a man's power of expenditure was a
bolter test of his ability than his incutne. 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, nod foresight, not
merely to lay by a portion of their income for the pur-
pose of providing for those who were to come after them,
to start them in life with a prospect of success, but they
were also hound 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•
moat 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 epplyi on a
larger and broader manner the great principle s of the
system of commercial end 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 humble an 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 he valued not for themselves, but
for the sake of the advantages and blessings they en-
jeyed under them.—(Loud 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 61.2,001, 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, hear.) He (Mr. Bering) believed that Govern
ment had diminished their surplus and altered their Bud-
get iu compliance with pressure from without; and so be-
lieving, be had called it the ac'! of a weak Government.
shouldHe 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, he 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 Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the declaration ef
Sir Robert Peel 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 he (Mr. Baring) had confidence
not only in the Right Honourable Baronet's intentions,
but his power.—(Hear, hear.) Now he bad 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 ono of the old-fashioned people who
believed that it was 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 wits
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 than the
former. The 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 reconeile teat 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 to
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.)
Sinco 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 8,000,000/. They were in this
dilemma, either the commercial prosperity so much
boasted of had failed to increase profits, or the greatmt
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.) Ho
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 -lien that the debtor kept
the money in his pocket and was able to pay. The Hon.
Gentleman who bad just sat down had very ably stated
hie views with regard to what had occurred since 1842.
In a great deal that the lion, Gentleman said he (Mr.
Baring) entirety concurred, more especially with regard
to the advantages 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 must here observe that it was
not fair to compere one year with another without taking
everything into consideration; neither was it right to re-
gard increased exports as a proof of prosperity, though
he admitted that to a certain extent it was. He c
have wished that the Government had proposed to main-
tain the whole of the surplus, to continuo the income-tax
for one year, affording time for considering how it might
be modified so as to snake it just, and then, if there were
a great surplus next year, to lease that surplus to be 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 be fur a time
great prosperity, yet it should not be forgotten that the
difference between the revenue of 1848 and that of 1847
was a fall in the latter 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 his friends not
to propose the reduction of small taxes, but rather to
deal with taxes affecting articles of larger consumption.
Did he suppose that if he repealed the window-tax ono
year, and some other tax the text, he would ever be
able to propose the reduction of the duty on tea? He
agreed with the Han. 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 seo how that object could be promoted by taking off
the window-tax. Had Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who
so rstentatiously called:themselves the friends of the
people, ever proposed a reduction of the duty on tea—
an article which entered so largely into the consumption
of the people, and upon whica 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 bad returned from
a foreign station but 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 a benefit
to all classes and an injury to none.—(Hear, hear.) It
would depreciate no British property, it would ruin no
British colony, it would sacrifice no British capital, it
would reduce the wages of no British labourer.--,(Cheers.)
That was " 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.—(Hear, hear.) He must declare
that he could not support, the Right Hon. Gentleman's
financial policy. Ho saw in it nothing large or compre-
hensive; he saw in it no justice to those whom the Right
Hon. Gentleman admitted to be suffsring; he saw iu it a
want of regard far 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 vote 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 be taken.—(Cheers.)
Mr. WILSON thought that the reasons assigned by
the lion. Member fur objecting to the Chancellor of the
' Exchequer's plan ought to have induced him to dissent
even more strongly from the amendment. The lion.
Gentleman had somewhat misrepresented what the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said when the income-tax
was originally proposed by Sir R. Peel. What the
Right Hon. Gentleman really said was, that although he
disliked an income-tax, he would not object to its impo-
sition if it were used as the means of enabling the Go-