The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-05 00:00:00

SUN, "

toyseif in a position in which I might be reduced to the
necessity of borrowing money to meet this claim in
.the
event of its being established. And now, before stating
niy reasons for adhering to my proposal respecting the
t income-tax, I will briefly advert to the motion of whichhe
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Ur. 'Terries) has
given notice. I look upon the Right. Hoe. Gentleman's
proposition es the first step in the direction of the policy
Which Lord Stanley has announced. It is duo to the
Bight Hon. Gentleman to state that he has brought for-
his• d proposition in the fairest possible manner. The
ltight ann.
Gentleman proposes to reduce the property-
tax, but not to an extent which would be inconsistent
with the maintenance of national faith, and up-in that
point, of course, I know I could rely on the Right Hon.
Gentleman. If the tax is to be reduced, a portion should
be reduced at once, and I admit, also, that if the policy
ir.to which I have adverted is to be pursued, the Right
zien• Gentleman's proposition is necessarily the first
Step to be taken. There is, however, this difference be-
tweet us—that I think the policy wrong. I admit that
the property-tax was first imposed for a temporary pur-
Pese--that of meeting a deficiency—and that the tem-
-11°417 purpose was accomplished. But in 1845 the tax
Was renewed for a different purpose.—(Hear, from the
9PPosition.) It was renewed for the purpose of enabling
the Rouse to make an improvement in financial legisla-
t,i,°:a by removing impolitic restrictions; ley reducing the
I,,r,'?e of articles of consumption, and repealing duties
;'uleb checked and retarded the development of indus-
We'at lexwteiltla,furiher admit that those objects have, tots
remain, been accomplished also. But there still
other objects to be accomplished, such as those
which vuieb I have detailed to the Committee to-night, an
cannot, consistently with the policy I approve of, proposese
h
the repeal of the property-tax until these objects 11
have been accomplished. I admit freely that any mute-
Mal reduction of the income-tax ought to be followed
by its final extinction. Nothing is, so impolitic as a
until reduction of a tax. I do not think that the in-
ce- tax presses heavily on those who pay it. I cannot
k that to a man having an income of 5,0001. a year
why her derived from land or a profession—the pay-
elelet of 150/. annually for the security with which he
1;1°3'8 his income is a heavy tax. Doubtless, this tax is
?Peu to ebjection on account of its inquisitorial nature,
but that objection applies as much to a tax of a penny
ax let us
at sto one of a shilling- If we are to have an income-
at least fix it at an amount which will enable
1111 to derive benefit from it. My belief is that if we
Were to make the proposed change now, no long tiuse
would elapse betore the tax would be renewed, and
„wand then we should be in the same position in which
e are now. The question is, shall we repeal
the income-tax, or shall we get rid of objeetioneble
Imposts? Let me direct the attention of the House
to What has taken place during the last few years. Take
the year when the income-tax first came into full opera-
tion, and last year,—that is to say, the year ending the
sth Of April, 1844, and that ending the sth of April
laaist. In the year ending the sth of April, 1844, the or-
nary revenue from Customs, Excise, Stamps, and
Taxes, was 45,593,0001. Between that time and last year
: uPwards of 7,000,000/. of taxes have been repealed; yet
last year the ordinary revenue from Customs, Excise,
Stamps, and Taxes, was a little more than that in 1844,
namely, 45,662,0001.—(Hear, hear.) Seven millions of
taxes have been repealed under the pressure of the in-
eotne-tax, and yet the ordinary revenue remains at the
same amount. With this proof before us of the elasticity
Of our trade and industrial resources—with this evidence
that the income-tax does not press very heavily upon us
--I am justified in believing that, if we remove objection-
able taxes, we shall before long be again in the
same position in which we are • now with respect to
revenue, while we shall have had the gratification
of freeing trade from its fetters, enlarging com-
ansrce, and—what I hold to be of even greater import-
!floe—improving the condition and augmenting the com-
forts of the great body of the people.—(Hear, hear.) I
will not anticipate the discussion that will take place on Monday respecting the income-tax. I have stated what
my e Proposals are viz., the reduction of duty on one
gr
rat'
article of consumption—the reduction of duty on
in ton2aterial, and extensive relief to householders both
lieve wn
to-
fort of and country. These are measures which I be-
e essentially necessary to the welfare and cone-
the people. The proposal of the Right Hon.
'Gentl
Wh,e man opposite, on the contrary, is to reduce a tax
r_ "se at any rate, presses only on those who have ade-
tt.e means to pay it, and the repeal of which would
Rer impossible the execution of any of the
. sures which I propose.—(lieur, hear.) Should the
might Honourable Gentleman's proposal be adopted, the
r ass of the Population cannot for a long period be re-
rtese.d from the imposts which press upon them. I must
the House, too, that the Riht Honourable Gen-
themall' proposal is coupled, not by him indeed, but by
togreat party with which he is connected, with a sug-
polled imposition of duty on foreign corn. If that
pro eY be' fully carried out, not only will the benefits we
ta;__P°se te confer on the labouring man be withheld from
I'', but he will be deprived of those he already enjoys.
ii:nuot sufficiently deprecate the results which would
e from such legislation. I have on many recent on-
trens attached, and I still attach, more importance to
8 political than the commercial results that would
er from a reversal of the legislation which has taken
RIF() for the benefit of the population of this country. I
oare'ere it to be essential to the stabiiity and well-being of
t institutions that the people should be contented and
eif,tisPePY• lam of opinion that if the people feel that
ties are the objects of our solicitude—that the improve•
which
of their material and moral condition is a matter
r.eztichgrtehteefeii Legislature has at heart—they will re-
Y attached to the Constitution.—(Hear,
great I believe that, under such circumstances, the
"4 mass of the
loyalty as people will continue as firm in their
,ita d.they vivre three years ago, and that—notwith-
° Ine the apprehensi,,ns which seem to have taken
Lressinu of the minds of some Hon. lelembers—we
w_ bid defiance to those outbursts of popular fury
which 'a short time since overpressed a large portion of
(The Right eof which were quenched in blood.—
Uon respecti • Gentleman, after moving the resolu-
loud cheers )ng the income-tax, resumed his seat amidst
That CHAIRMAN read the resolution as follows:
Itait ti2etowards raising the supply granted to her Ma-
respective duties in Great Britain on profits
and
t• ril! from property, professions, trades, and offices,
issuisse stamp duties in Ireland granted by two Acts
Whie in the sixth year of her present Majesty, and
Allbsn have been continued and amended by several
recitlent Acts, shall be further continued for a time to
united."
BERRIES expressed his astonishment at the
—".llae taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
ilest_ occurred in the House last night. An understand-
isegv„WB3 Coale to last night, that his ( Nfr. Herries's) pr?-
the"!,011 should be postponed to Monday, and yet, in
the;_ace of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
aed not only his proposition, but the policy of
the Party opposed to him, not with reference to
4f,, proprty-tax, but generally. (Hear, hear.)
Could what had occurred, he deeply regretted that he
311 not bring his proposition before the House until
zerday, Be would not be led into a discussion with
40Pect to the policy of the party on his side of the
Chanceu but this he could not avoid saying, that the
bllor of the Exchequer's Budget, and the speech
stSehich it was introduced, clearly showed that it was
intention that the income tax should be perpetual.—
ilti(ltsed cheers.) He was provoked to refer to what the
ta!mt lion. Gentleman had stated upon the renewal of
to dPrePerty tax in 1845, when he (Mr. Herries) con-
n
thail? In Opposition to the Right Hon. Gentleman,
eta H. Peel did then legitimately continue that tax
ther the conditions which had induced the House in
,s_e *at instance to grant it. Sir R. Peel, when he pro-
posed its renewal, reminded them that he had originaily
riet
t introduced it under the belief that if they found the
sures which he proposed at the same time should
Let h„
e accomplished all their purpose, they would em-
ir' the period during which that tax should continue.
thtlae eeg Other things, Sir R. Peel stated tbat he believed
0, Property tax would press mainly upon the rich, and
tie" uPen the poor. But what said the Right Hon. Gen-
clean upon that occasion:-
- Two grounds have been stated which had led very 11 eutseh
to acquiescence in the tax. One was, that it was
il„Lat. which pressed exclusively on the rich, and took
deductions from the employment of artizans. So far
1,111 its being a tax which pressed exclusively on the
1,
,:en, he believed that it pressed on the labouring popule-
"on by diminishing the means of giving them employ-
tient. But he did not believe that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman himself could think that it was a tax which
ere exclusively upon the rich; because, if he did, why
he not impose it in Ireland?"
SDid the Right Hon. Gentleman still maintain that
Pinion? If not, why did not he extend it to Ireland?—
nar, hear.) Bat the Right Hon. Gentleman gave
ao
,dartthe r reason for opposing the tax. Speaking of the
g„" Of the tax becoming perpetual, he said:
the .question thi' Jae thought it would be right that they should have
fairly and fully discussed, namely, whether
of ray:est"' tax was to be regarded as a permanent source
ll
its hue? Let it be discussed on its own merits—on
int "n grOund— but let ns not be le on step by step
tie° a coarse from which it would beampossible after a
ie to extricate ourselves."
groat shouldashe
was
his (Mr. Herries's) opinion,
and u
,„13°8,e on Monday next to show such re
hei;:gltt would be sufficient to induce the House to pause
the-„r`2,,heY
this. this tax unavoidably perpetual; for if
filling the first legitimate opportunity of fel_
to los: the engagements of Parliament with respect to it,
Would ever man could be so foolish as to believe that it
nfth. be removed from the shoulders of the people
act, 13,country.—(Hear.) He could not sit down without
in ring to some of the topics that had been
and
Isis, e speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, tiblateecer-
Daml had marvelled much at the course that e had
With and the nature of his arguments. Setting on.
bath tete Principle, first and foremost, that it was esseh
eredi? Preserve a surplus in order to maintain the public..
snr, tbto Provide amply for the public service, and to in
cee4o Public against possible contingencies, he pro-
to a su to abandon revenue until he reduced his surplus
conshitin not exceeding 300,0001. or 400,000/. Such in-
of paellae (Mr. Hurries) had never heard in the course
and la
loe. mentary career. Was that fulfilling the high
seta ei,tY yretensions which the Right Hon Gentleman
sech 1',04 it was the very reverse of all that, and, if
'4l era to be his course of proceeding, he might,
east, h
ave spared his eulogium upon the policy of
Gc,ntie'ent charaeter.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
°f Lora had very unnecessarily introduced the policy
With ts°tattley int ) his speech. What had that to do
keno ue question? He (Mr. Berries) hoped that on
1/ithsaY he should be able to discuss the income-tax
tip
all involving questions of the corn duty or
if
I; andz It was purely an economical and fiscal ques-
tho, he hoped to be able to show to the HOW° that
all h4n`lesired to administer fairly, usefully, and above
estlY) the financial affairs of this country, they
l'roperoid the renewal upon insufficient grounds of the
hats'l‘ttla max.—(Flear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentle-
ast •
-st b, onished him by his boldness, and more esp-
.'the very little fooling he seemed to have bad

THE

for ex-Chancellors of the Exthe.quer woo administered
the affairs of the country when Lord Melbourne was in
office. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think
very lightly of the unfortunate events which preceded
the advent of Sir R. Peel to office, and disposed to
throw something like ridicule upon those who had
the administration of financial affairs previous to 1842,
when most fortunately Sir R Peel came to the rescue
and saved the country from the state of ruin into
which the Whig Administration had thrown it.
Another point the Right Honourable Gentleman had
referred to which he wondered he was not afraid to
touch. The Right Honourable Gentleman adverted to
1848, when the income-tax was renewed, and it would
seem as if he thought that all that passed upon that oc-
cation had been forgotten.—(Hear, hear.) It would
seem as if he thought they had forgotten the proposition
for a double income-tax—(hear, hear)—and that when
the House refused that, the Government found the means
(a salutary lesson, indeed, to the House of Commons) of
reducing the expenditure so as to render sufficient that
which the House of Commons would give.—(Hoar, hear.)
What was it that had occasioned the difficulties and em-
barrassments in which the Right Hon. Gentleman at that
time found himself—what but that unwarrantable aug-
mentation of expenditure which bad taken place under that
Government when the navy, army, and ordnance were
increased 3,000,000/. above what they had stood at for
some years, aided by the dissolation and ruin that had
been scattered over the whole mercantilecommunity by the
umfortunate Currency Act? That was the case iu 1848,
when the income-tax was last renewed. He (Mr. Herries)
voted for that renewal, and he did so most consien-
tinualy, for, such was the condition to which the finances
of the country had been reduced by the then Adminis-
tration, that he felt he could not, at that time, resist the
terrible proposition of renewing the income-tax. But
the country was now prospering—we had a surplus—all
things were smiling; and now, if they renewed the in-
come-tax, the people of England never would be freed
from it. fie hoped that on Nionday next they would
make a beginning of the end of that tax.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR had never joined his friends
in their opposition to the income-tax, for he had always
considered it desiraale that we should have more direct
taxation than we had.—(Haar, hear.) Nothing would
give him greater satisfaction than to see it permanently
imposed upon the country provided it could be equitably
assessed. He congratulated his Right Hon. Friend upon
the statement he had made that evening, and upon his
having adhered to the principle of his former Budget,
which he had regarded as a perfectly honest and prac-
tical Budget—framed, not to catch the public eye, per-
haps, but to relieve as much as possible the springs of
industry by removing those taxes which rendered articles
of prime necessity dear to the people.--(Hear, hear.)
He was certainly much surprised at the outburst of in-
dignation from the metropolis when the Right Honour-
able Gentleman spoke of a house-tax in place of the
window-tax, because he believed it to be a very proper
substitute. The Right lion. Gentleman had stated that
150/. per annum was not a large sum for a man with
5,0001. a year to pay for the enjoyment of that fortune
in peace and security. He quite concurred in that view,
and he could not forget that the working classes did not
pay one farthing of that tax. He thought it was quite
remarkable that, since the enactment of the property-tax,
political agitation had, with the single exception of the
year 1848, greatly subsided, until he believed at the
present moment he might almost say it was entirely
extinct.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
had entreated the House to aid him in withstanding
any attempt to reduce the duties upon small articles.
That appeared to be tantamount to declaring that,
however unjust the duty upon small articles, it ought
to be retained. There was one which ho (Lord R.
Grosvenor) should certainly oppose—he meant the at-
torney's annual certificate duty; and he gave notice
that, upon the earliest day, he should move for its
repeal.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said teat when the former Budget was
proposed he had objected to paying 1,000,0001. per an-
num off the funded debt while heavy excise duties yet
remained. He was surprised, therefore, that upon this
occasion the Right Hon. Gentleman had not stated
whether he intended to apply a penny or a million to that
purpose. He saw from an official document that the
surplus was 2,500,000/., although the Right Honourable
Gentleman had stated it to be only 1,800,0001. What be-
came of the difference? Was he going to apply any
portion of it to pay off the capital of the national debt?
He should like to know from the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, before he proceeded further, what ho proposed
to do with the national debt?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
surprised that so old a Member of Parliament as the
Hon. Gentleman should not know that it was provided
under an Act of Parliament that, for the purpose of
paying off the national debt, one fourth part of the sur-
plus of any one year must be appropriated to the reduc-
tion of that debt.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME was aware of that, and for that very rea-
son he would exhaust the surplus by reducing taxation.
—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had admitted
that Government was established for the benefit of the
many, and that taxes should be taken off which would
relieve the working-classes. Did applying 1,000,0001.
a year towards paying off the national debt relieve the
poor man? [An Hon. MEMBER—Yes, by reducing the
interest.] If he would remove the soap-tax he would
benefit the working man ten times more.—(Hear, hear.)
While there was a tax on soap, on paper, on ads
vertisments, on newspapers, he was prepared to solve
cate their repeal in preference to paying off the capital
of the debt. He was prepared to nsaintain the income-
tax with the view of reducing other taxes which pressed
upon the poor, but not in order to keep up large and un-
necessary establishments. He was sorry that the Right
Hon. Gentleman who had left his place (Mr. ferries),
and who had adverted to this subject, had not assisted
him in his attempt at reducing the estimates, for the
Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly said to them,
that having passed the estimates, they
.had no right to
complain. Ile contended that the estimates were now
4,000,0001. more than they ought to be. It; then, the
estimates were reduced they might get rid of the
income-tax altogether, or take off every excise duty
that now existed, the ordinary revenue of
the country being fully capable of maintaining
every legitimate establishment. He would not agree to
renew the housettax while so large en amount was to
go towards paying off the capital of the national debt.
He would rather pay 7 per cent. income-tax than see au
excise duty on tea, malt, soap, paper, and such articles;
and it was a hardship that people could not advertise
what they wanted without paying a heavy duty, when
so many as ten thousand advertisements might be seen
in 113 American paper. The removal of the window-tax,
in a sanitary point of view, was praiseworthy. He could
not oppose the income-tax; and he should conclude by
repeating his conviction that, in the financial arrange-
ments of the country, the object to be kept in view
was giving the greatest possible relief to the mass of
the people.
Mr. TRELAWNY reminded the House that he had
proposed to appropriated 2,000,000/. towards the extinc-
tion of the national debt. Many would think the prosi-
tioa Quixotic; but he believed that to be the fairest mode
of removing the pressure of taxation. The metropolitan
Members asked the repeal of the window-tax, others
asked the repeal of the attorney-tax. These were demands
made for particular classes. What he wanted was a re-
duction that should be spread over as large a surface as
possible. The working classes perfectly understood the
attempts to get rid of those taxes which pressed on the
middle classes in the first instance. If he had to plant a
colony, he would see that each person paid his fair pro-
portion to the general expenses of the community. He
was not against the proposal of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on the window-tax, but he thought the an-
nual appropriation of a sum for the reduction of the
national debt oughtto be made. Was it the objtct of Hon.
Gentlemen on the Opposition benches to impose perpe-
tual duties on corn, as the Right Hon. Member for Stain-
ford seemed to signify? Such a measure, he ventured to
say, would be most unpopular with the country.
Mr. BAILLIE observed, that he had heard the first
financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
with some regret. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
said it was not intended to alter or and modify the income-
tax, that he had been adverse to it, but had changed his
opinion, observing, the great advantage it gave to Sir
Robert Peel in the reduction of import duties by the
substitution of direct taxation; and he stated that the
Opposition had supported him on the ground that it was
his intention to follow in the footsteps of Sir R. Peel. Sir
R. Peel bad not recommended the income-tax in any
such terms. When he first proposed it there was a
great deficit in the Exchequer, and there had been a de-
fieit for successive years; and he called on the House to
support the public revenue when he proposed the in-
come-tax for a limited period, because he thought the
necessities of the country would not render it necessary
for more than three years. What did Sir R. Peel state
when he proposed to renew the tax in 1845?—" I don't
wish to say one word in favour of a continuance of thip
taxation beyond the three years; I don't think the House
will agree that the income and property-tax, as now itn
posed, ought to be permanent."—(Hear, hear.) What
was the statement of Sir R. Peel in 1848?—" That one
of his reasons for consenting to allow the income-tax
to be continued for three years was that only last
year, in time of peace, you were obliged to add
10,000,0001. of debt, and on that account increased efforts
ought to be made to meet an increased expenditure of
the country." But the Right Honourable Gentleman
asked the House to allow the tax to remain, that he
might reduce import and other duties. They must hold
it, then, to be a permanent burden. If so, could there
not be modifications of the great injustice it worked to
particular classes ? It operated most unjustly on pro-
fessional incomes. A graduated scale might be intro-
duced. Bat he wished rather to call attention to the
cikenerabt.inonkeorfa,thme
etracxhon the owners and occupiers of land.
annual YBhnould they not have the privilege of returning the
teitt
uproduce of their receipts, and paying on that,
wanentrs ,
of
Imaraneufaecsttuarteerson?
the One
westo f
ICoisasct°onfs-Scutiand, had, for the lastg four or five yew's.
paid income tax on a rental of not less than 4,0001. or
5,000/. a-year. Ina memorial to the Treasury he stated
that he had not received 6d. of income from that pro-
party,aladrivvaantcee rde sloourr ct else. support
r, thtfeatrh.e)
people
blu,otota.tfrhoeinhhaias
chat was an injustice which surely might be remedied
if the tax was to be permanent. The Lords of the Trea-
sury, in reply, admitted that it was a case of great hard-
ship, but added, that the law was
imperative, and that
they could give him no redress. Re had no objection
that the tax should be permanent, or even increased, but
it ought to be properly adjusted.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had now placed the house-tax on a rational
principle. There was, however, no,
im-
posing a house-tax at all, and he shouldnecessity for give it his most
decided opposition. The Right Hon. Gentleman had
based his calculations on an erroneous principle when
he assumed a falling off equivalent to the reduction:of
taxation. Experience pointed to a different conclusion.
Taking the five years from 1822 to 1826, during which
a large amount of taxation was removed, the falling off

in tLe revenue from what remained was equal to ono-
tuird of the amount-of the taxation reduced. So in 11
years from 1830 to 1840 the taxes reduced were
8.600,000/., the falling off in revenue 2,700,000/. only.
The reduction of taxation in the nine years from 1842
amounted to 5,138,0001. The amount of the taxes, after
reduction, was last year 4,700,0001. more than in IS4I,
the year previous to the year of reductions. He van•
turgid to predict that the actual tailing off on account of
the window-tax would not equal the amount of the re-
duction. The Noble Lord the Member for Middlesex
was pleased to say the metropolitan Members were out
of their senses on the subject of the window-tax. It
seemed, that in the estimation of the'Noble Lord, it was
only those who sat on the Treasury bench that were in
their senses. _

Lord R. GROSVENOR begged to state that what
be said was, ho hoped the metropolitan Members had
come to their senses.—(A laugh.) He did not demur
to the application the Hon. Member had made of his
expression, but it had not been put as the Hon. Member
said. If it were signified that he (Lord R. Grosvenor)
was so tied to the present Ministry that when they
changed their position on a subject he went with them
necessarily, he must tell the Honourable Member that
it was an insult to those constituents who had returned
him (Lord Robert Grosvenor) to that House, and
who never had returned any man who had sacrificed his
independenne.
Lord DUNCAN expressed his gratification in having
to address the House more briefly than on former occa-
sions when the window-tax was brought under notice.
He could not concur with the Noble Lord the Member
for Middlesex in saying that the present pro-
position was the same with that made on a
firmer occasion. It was totally different. In the
first proposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed to retain two-thirds of the window-tax, and
old houses and new were to be treated very differently
The present plan seemed to show the truth of the adage
" Second thoughts are best." The second plan involved
a total abandonment of the window-tax. Relief to the
extent of 500,0001. a-year more than by the former plan
was to be given. The country were much indebted to
his Right Hon. Friend and the metropolitan Members
who bad been so much censured; and, without pledging
himselt to support the plan now proposed, he wished
to express his opinion that it was a great improvement
on the former. , .

Sir E. HALL, as one of the metropolitan Members
who had lately been " out of their senses," reminded
his Noble Friend that be might rather have said it was
the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been out of
his mind, tor the metropolitan Members had not changed
theirs. He recollected a remarkable speech made by
the Hoff Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty,
when out of office, with reference to the income-tax,
and there was a general impression, when that Hon.
Gentleman took office, that it was almost a guarantee
that there would be a different arrangement with regard to
that tax. Before saying anything upon the window-tax
he must allude to what had fallen from the Chancellor of
the Exchequer relative to a certain meeting or meetings
that had taken place in the metropolis. The Right
Hon. Gentleman expressed himself as surprised that any
persons at that meeting should have been, as he said,
favourable to a breach of good faith with the public
creditor. He did not know to what particular meeting
the Right Hon. Gentleman referred. There had been a
number of meetings in the metropolis, but he knew of no
individuals who at any of them had expressed a desire
for a breach of good faith. What was contended for
was, that by means of economy and a proper adminis-
tration of the affairs of the country, a sufficient amount
might be saved to enable them to repeal the income-tax.
—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had also referred
to the statements made to him by various deputations
on the subject of the window-tax, to the effect that
they advocated its repeal on the ground of sanitary re-
form. But those deputations merely took up the ques-
tion of sanitary reform because that was the position
which had been taken up by gentlemen who were now
members of the Government—many of the Whigs when
out of office having contended on sanitary grounds that
the window-tax should be repealad.—(Hear.) With re-
gard to the scheme of a house-tax proposed by the Right
Hon. Gentleman, he maintained that, so long as there
was a possibility of reducing the public expenditure, no
such tax should be imposed—(Hear, hear)—and he was
resolved to take the sense of the House on that question
when the proper time came for doing so.—(Hear, hear.)
The sum that would be derived from the imposition of
this tax was 74)0,0001., and he thought a reduction to that
amount might easily be made in the expenditure of the
country so as to render the tax unnecessary.—(Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER asked whether the Chancellor of the
Exchequer meant that tenant-farmers were to continue
to pay the income-tax on an assumed rate of profit,
though they might be farming at a loss ?—whether he
meant to make any modifications as far as life interests
and professional incomes were concerned—and for what
period he intended to impose the tax ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed
a renewal of the income-tax for three years. With re-
gard to the other questions of the Hon. Gentleman, he
thought it would be much better to discuss those topics
separately when they came regularly before the House.
It was a very complicated web the Hon. Gentleman pro-
posed to unravel, and it could not well be entered upon
now; but ho should be ready to discuss ell the questions
raised when the proper time came.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY looked upon the financial statement of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer as one tending to the
destruction of the public credit, and subversive of those
principles on which the interests of a great country like
this should be sustained. The Right Hon. Gentleman
spoke of a surplus, and then he announced that there
was a powerful body ready to seize him by the throat
and order him to deliver to an amount nearly equal to
the whole of that surplus. He told them of a probable
claim by the East India Company of 400,0001.; and then
he spoke of the expense of the Kafir war—the last Kafir
war, as they all knew, having cost a sum of 1,100,000/.
—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman next com-
plained that the gentlemen behind him, who had been
made so rich, he said, by our recent policy, would not
let his surplus alone, and insisted on pulling the revenue
down to an extent inconsistent with the public credit.
Having made these statements, he brought forward a
scheme which left the surplus so small that it would be
entirely swallowed up by the Kafir war and the East
India Company's claim, should it be preferred.—(Hear.)
hear.) After this they heard a great deal of clap-
trap about taking off the taxes on articles of con-
eumption, and about the two kinds of direct taxation
which he meant to preserve—the window-tax and the
income-tax. He called upon the House, in the first
place, to take off every tax that pressed upon con-
sumption, and then he proposed to limit the direct
taxation to a comparatively small number of persons.
How long would the public credit be sustained in such
circumstances as these?—(Hear, hear.) Such a state of
things was calculated to create alarm, for with the
taxes paid by a small number of people, instead of by
the great mass of the community, how could they expect
long to maintain the public credit?—(Hear, hear.) He
hoped that the revenue of the country would either be
increased or the expenditure cut down, so that they
might encounter no such risk as would be involved in an
entire want of eurplus.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACGREGOR said.there were two questions be-
fore the House. One was whether they were to go back
to protection—(Oh, oh !),—and the other was whether
they should follow the course recommended by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) lie hoped
the surplus would be increased by means of a reduction
in the public expenditure. The proposal of the Hon.
Member for Stamford as to the income-tax was the most
dangerous that could be merle. He (Mr. Macgregor)
was fecontioning the income-tax, but not on the prin-
ciple upon which it was now levied. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer, he thought, had acted on sound princi-
ples with regard to the window-tax, but he could not
have supported the first scheme of a house-tax which he
had brought forward. To show the pressure of taxa-
tion on articles of consumption, he might state that an
artizan with a wife and two children, and earning 751.
a-year, paid of taxes on necessary articles of food for
his family 7L Bs., or 10 per cent. of his income.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked whether warehouses,
manufactories, banking-houses, and other places used for
carrying on trade and commerce, were to be included in
the payment of 6d. in the pound? If that was not the
case great complaint would justly be made against the
measure; and he should like to hear on what principle
that description of property, which did not pay the
window-tax, should be made to pay the new house-tax?
—(Hear, hear.) Then why was a shopkeeper, paying
say, 3501. of rent, of which 591. was for the dwelling-
house, to be called on to pay on the rent of his shop, viz.
on 300/., which at present did not contribute anything?
Why should that class of the community be singled out
as the objects of such injustice?—(Hear, hear.) As to
the coffee duties, he thought the Government should,
when making a reduction, withdraw the order in Council
relative to the admission of chicory. He would support
the income-tax if it was to be renewed en fair principles,
but he could be no party to passing it with its present in-
equalities. He had presented a petition from 91 corn-
meters who were charged for income-tax, though he
could show that many of these men had in reality not
one-ball of the sum of 150/. a-year, and yet they had to
pay 7d. in the pound just in the same way as the
wealthiest landed proprietor.—(Hear, hear.) Such a
merle of imposing the income-tax was alike impolitic and
unjust.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. BROWN thought the sum calculated upon by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer for contingencies
would be quite sufficient, notwithstanding all that had
fallen from the Hon. Gentleman opposite. As to the
Budget, he thought the reduction of the timber duties
was a boon to which the shipping interest were entitled,
especially sinee we had exposed them to competition
with all the world. The reduction of the coffee duties
would be a boon to every class of the community, and he
must say that he regarded the proposed house-tax as a
very proper and just measure.—(Hear.) He hoped all
those Members who had supported progressive measures
would not desert a Ministry at a time when a Protection-
ist system was attempted to be re-introduced.—(Cheers.)
He believed this country was as lightly taxed as any na-
tion in the world, and he appealed to all honest Free-
traders to support the proposition of the Government.
Sir D. L. EVANS said that sixteen years ago he as-
sisted in the repeal of the house-tax, and he therefore
felt it difficult to acquiesce in the proposal to renew
that impost; at the same time he admitted that the pre-
sent plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a
greet improvement on his former scheme. He hoped,
however, that attention would be given to the points ad-
verted to by the worthy Alderman. Many thousands of
persons in this town took houses to let them out in lodg-
ings; he was of opinion that those parties had a claim
to be placed in the same situation as the shopkeepers.
While he was willing to support a property-tax, be
wished to see modifications introduced with respect to
the income-tax.
Mr. STANFORD said, it appeared to him that some
Hon. Gentlemen seemed to consider not so much the
merit or demerit of the proposition of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer as they did the question whether Minis-