The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-07 00:00:00

remind the House that the fact was, that the property
and income tax ivas first imposed for a period of three
years, and that it seas 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, ho was quite sure
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his
statement to the House would have said so. Had he
not said so, he (Mr. Herries) would have been
obliged to suspect the Right Hon. Baronet of a practice
to which he little thought him liable.—(Hear, hear.) He
expected, therefore, that it was the 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
couatry 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
3,800,000/. was constituted by !the Whigs, and that the
income-tax was imposed to meet this deficiency, to remove
the obstruction of trade, and to facilitate the action of com-
merce. Now Sir R. Peel distinctly declared, and there
could be no doubt about the fact, that he took this tax
hs 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 accomlishment 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 lenity, asked the House not only
to renew the tax but to augment it, but the
House refused to sanction the latter part of the
Noble Lord's proposition, and eventually it was
not persevered in. That brought them down to the pre-
sent period; but before he proceeded now to ask the
House to refuse the continuance of the tax altogether,
he wished to direct the attend on of the House to the
opinions of men of the highest eminence, who had
filled the most responsible offices of the state, as
to the peculiar character of this tax.—(Hear, hear.)
He did not propose to use the extracts which
he should take the liberty of reading as ad argument=
ad hominen, he used them because they contatned in
themselves expression 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 reasons
he had already stated, Sir Robert Peel induced the
House in the first instance to adopt his proposition;
and on the second occasion, when he pressed the conti-
nuance 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 is levied.
It was opposed by Lord John Russell, Mr. Labouchere,
Lord Howick, and though last, not least, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.—(Hear, hear.) The words,
then, used by the present Prime Minister deserved the
serious attention of the House on the present solemn
occasion, when they were about to determine whether
they should or should not have a permanent income-tax.
The Noble Lord, in 1842, said the evil of the income-
tax was not confined to the sum drawn from the pockets
of the people, that he considered it an inquisitorial tax,
and that it ought only to be resorted as a last resource
in periods of difficulty.—(Hear, hear.) Again, in
18-15, he said it was a tax subject to some
of the greatest objections which could be urged against
any tax, that he was of opinion that inequality of tax-
ation and fraud were inherent qualities of the tax.
—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, when the Noble Lord
asked for a continuance of the tax in 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 1848,
" God forbid, that under the present difficulties
of the country, they should require the House
to adopt such a measure as the imposition
of a house-tax, adding that he would resort to any other
means rather than adopt such a system of taxation, which
was alien to the habits of the people of this country, and
which was carried into effect in an inquisitorial manner,
and attended with vexatious proceedings infinitely
more annoying than the amount of money taken
from the people's pockets."—(Hear, hear.) Now, as
the country was not now under the pressure of those
difficulties which existed at that time, these arguments
applied with ten-fold 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 House ought to restrict the imposition of a tax so
excediugly odious as that proposed by Sir R. Peel
They were tole," said that Noble Lord, " that taxation
ought to be equal, but was anything more monstrously
unequal than a property-tax."—(Hear, hear.) The
First Lord of the Admiralty, who had always been a
consistent and arduous opponent of the tax,
had said, in 1845 and 1848, that he yielded only to
necessity, and to the prospect of a failing revenue in
giving any degree of support to the tax; he hoped,
therefore, he might challenge that Right Hon. Gentle-
man's vote on this occasion in favour of his amendment.
He put 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 which vexation, in-
justice, and fraud were, according to the account of his own
party, inherent acd inseparable. He called upon the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who had stigmatised
this tax when in opposition, whether they had changed
their opinions nuw? He himself was but too im-
pressed with the fact that the tax was vexatious
and injurious. He know that the farmer who was losing
money every day. The merchant, whose affairs were sub-
ject to the inquisition of the tax, and the professional man,
whose hard-earned profits were unfairly and unequally
pressed upon, were fully convinced that this tax was
vexatious and unjust. The just claim for reduction, h•
contended, was the income-tax. He could not see
where was the great benefit of the proposal of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he did not pro-
pose to make anything cheaper, or to give any
great relief to any great class of the country.
It was evident that anyone who adopted the opinions
generally 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 he believed that
nobody whatever would hesitate to accede to
it, and he believed that not any of the
friends of Sir Robert Peel would have attempted for a
moment to say that it was not 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 Ue 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 exigency.—(Ceeers.)
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 were Members from Ireland,
how it would affect their country ? Sir Robert Peel
in introducing this measure, had given good reasons
why the Act for imposing the income-tax should not
extend to Ireland. That great man had always been
consistent, and he (Hr. 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 ineqealities, with all its
wrongs, with all its injustice, he must certainly vote
against the motion.—(Hear, hear.) Had the great man
who originally imposed that tax been now
below amongst them he (Mr. Herries) would never
have made that motion, for he was quite
sure to moot the question and to move for an abolition
of the tax.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared from the state.

ment that there was now a surplus from the income-tax
of about 1,550,0001. The Right Hon. Gentleman shook
his head. Well, then, he would make a composition
with the Right Hon. Gentleman, and take the surplus al
2,000,0001.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING.

SIX O'CLOCK.

No bettin,

from which it must necessarily cease, to be happy.—Eliza
A child never should be indulged in any habit,
Cook's Journal.
ST. GEORGB'S HOSPITAL.—On Friday afternoon a
general court of the governors of this institution was held in
the board-room, for the purpose of receiving the report of
the financial condition of the hospital during the past year,
and on general business. The minutes of the last gnarterly
court having been confirmed, the financial report was pre-
sented. The balance in hand on the 31st of December, 1849,
was 8054 4s. 9d. The annual subscriptions amounted to
3,3671. 14s. 10d., and the life subscriptions to 2551. The di-
vidends were 2,3781. 18s. 2d., and these sums—added to the
receipts from pupils, benefactions, and legacies—gave a total
ordinary income of 6,973/. 4s. 4d. The sale of stock during
the year realised 7,6011. 17s. Ild., and 111/. Bs. 4d. had been
received from the Sun and Westminster Fire Insurance
offices for damages done by the late fire at the hospital.
The total receipts for the year amounted to 15,506/. 14s.
The receipts on behalf of the convalescent fund were
255/. 17s. 7d. The expenses of the establishment for the
year were 12,1991.65. 4d., and 2,5201. had been paid on ac-
count of building contracts and architect's commission.
352/. 9s. Bd. had been paid to answer special claims ; making
the expenditure 15,071/. 165., and leaving a balance of 434/.
18g. in favour of the charity. *This statement was received,
and, after the transaction of come routine hotness, the board
beparged,