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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 7.
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 Aets
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
he had to offer, to coincide with his amendment
he begged to say that he had seen with groat
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, tx-
pressly state that he should refrain from entering into
any details.—(Hear, hear.) He 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 all
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, howev©r he might rejoice in this surplus, be had
still to allow some 22,0001. or 23,0001. for the
expenses of the Kafir wer.—(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.—(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
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 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 attention 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 wbicn
he should take the liberty of reading as an argumentunt
ad hominem, he used them because they contatned
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 ever; body. 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 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. 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
1845, 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.
—(l.lear, hear.) Then, again, when the Noble Lord
asked for a continuance of the tax in 1848, he
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 eliculd 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 vexations 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 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 House ought to restrict the imposition of a tax so
excedingly odious as that proposed by Sir R. Peel.
" They were told," 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 184 S, that he yielded only to
nece,sity, and to the prospect of a failing revenue in
giving any degree of support to the tax; he hoped,
there fore, he might challenge that Right lion. 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 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? He 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. 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 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
he 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 exigency.—(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 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 (Mr. Herries) knew thee 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 had
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 about 2,200,000/.—(Dissent from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.) The Right Hon. Gentleman shook his
head. He had himself stated it at 1,900,0001., and the
produce of the year had exceeded his expectations by
200,000/. or 300,000/. However ho would make a com-
promise, and would take 2,000,000/. 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 he 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. If
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 tam, to which
the people were pretty well accustomed, 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 1,560.000/. 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
he (Mr. Herries) had submitted to them. The proposal
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the perpetuation
of the incomestax 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 affording 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; hut, 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 deeision of the Government and of the
House on this question; and he 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 he had formed on a previous evening. But in
quoting his opinions the Right Hon. 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 be 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 ho did not know
what portion of his public conduct was inconsistent with
that declaration.—(Hear, hear.) He granted the tax
bad 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 (Hr.
Retries) seemed to doubt what he (the Chancellor of'
the Exchequer) was saying. With the permission of
the House he would refer to Sir Robert Peel's speech
upon the occasion.—(Rear, 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 provide a surp:us, but to enable us to
make those great experiments which we have com-
menced."—(Rear, 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, after 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 p'srpose 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 objectionable than theincome-
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 he
then said with respect to the income-tax? He had said—
" We are now told that this tax was imposed for the
purpo'ses of carrying through a i great experiment in tax-
ation. I do not object to it on these grounds."
He did not think, therefore, that he could be
charged with inconsistency upon that point; for
income
tax had supported the renewal of the
tax in the year 1845 expressly for the purpose
of enabling the House and the Government to make a
great 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 repeat. He had
said on that occasion that. the ground on which he had
opposed the imposition at the imcome-tax in the year
1842wasthtahteythwaterteaxtvoiarset receive from
oivhigha price to pay for
the benefit
the changes of
taxation which had then ;
been proposed but he had
stated in the year 1842, in opposing that tex, that if an
alteration were made in the duties on corn, on sugar, on
timber, and on other great articles of consumption, ho
should be ready to vote for direct taxation, and even for
theincome-tax. Now, those duties had been repealed,
and circumstances which would justify the imposition or
the retention of the income-tax bad occurred since the
year 1842, and he had therefore with perfect consistency
proposed a renewal of the income-tax in the year 1848,
and he 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. Herries) 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
1845. The Right lion. Gentleman might then have

The ob.
proposed the total abolition of the income-tax. ".'" do
jections to the inequality and injustice of the tax, o°o6
the frauds to which it was calculated to give rise, od
been as strong then as they were at the present dot', 8,
yet the Right Hon. Gentlemau had proposed at thet,Pr
riod that the tax should be swept away. He shoulddi be
ther remind the Right Hon. Gentleman that it o°lol
a much more satisfactory proceeding to sweep it °told
once, it that were possible, than to propose that it ertto
be reduced by the amount of 2d. in the pound., inod.
year 1845 Sir R. Peel and the Hou:e of Commons„,bdi
thought proper—and wisely as he (the Chanceilhror.leh
Exchequer) believed—to renew the tax for a limlred,Ll
rind; and they were at present reaping the advanutto
of the amended system of taxation which had by 5e
means been secured. He hoped, too, that in the etwstit
of three years from the present time they would sg'oo
be enjot ing similar advantages, and that it '"lde
then be open to them again to deal with the WC° It
tax. in whatever way they might think fit. 00
seemed to be supposed in some quarters that Mods
malting inroads on the national faith and °t e,
by the coarse which he at present proposed to Pur:o
An Hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think thto
would destroy the credit of the country by a rerrhtel
of taxes to the amount of 1,536,0001. But Lord o*-00t
had stated openly and candidly—and ho (the Chencely
of the Exchequer) respected the Noble Lord for
frankness of his declaration—that he proposed tore
the income-tax by an amount of one-half or oneswaded
and the Right Honourable Gentleman at present prOP od,
that it should be reduced from 7d. to sd. in the I)oPilet
'rho Right Hen. Gentleman would, therefore, surrePoet
taxes to the extent of 1,560,0001.; while he (the Che"rs
for of the Exchequer) proposed that they should bitda
duced by a somewhat smaller amount. Under tiles' 0
cumstances Hon. Gentlemen opposite could Weds,
right to charge her Majesty's Government With 001
honesty in their present financial proposals, or to:eal 00
they were running a risk of destroying the credit 0 0
country; or, at all events, the dishonesty would be,"
great on the opposite aide of the House as on that on II ''S
he had the honour to sit. It had also been said tb'oll
was endangering the national faith, by proposieß4
out of a reduction of 1,536,0001. not less than 1,100,t700
should be a reduction of direct taxation. The 101
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley, we believe) tr
complained that her Majesty's Government wer°ool
ducing direct taxation, and that in that respect idS
were not acting on their own principle, that reduet
of taxation ought to take place.on the great artrellS
consumption, or on the raw materials of industry'. siS
Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they would tOO,
the national credit by the adoption of such a 0,0%11
But that was the very system proposed by the Ss
Hon. Gentleman the Member fur Stamford (5-11.%'"61
lies); so that between the two Gentlemen, tvh°7.ed
should consider as the highest authorities amen the root
opposite, on all commercial and financial quest'
d
there was a direct discordance of opinion upon Ty
point. The whole argument of the Right Hon. Glll 10 ,
man was founded on the supposition that the prop 4
(the Chancellor of the Excnequer) had submitted to to
House was a proposal for a permanent income-MX; of
he had not said one syllable to that effect, and no ?Lot
sal he had wade could bear that construction.--V'v
hear.) He had invariably spoken of the tax as one
posed in order to cover removals or modifications 00
duties which unduly interfered with the develeeo
of the national resources. He then proposed therici
newel of the income-tax as it stcod for a limited Pe sy
of three years. He was well aware, and so was 0
Right Hon. Gentleman,
.of the difficulty, and Set,
most impossibility, as the Right Hon. Gentleman )30,,,
appeared to think, of modifying the schedules 1"
manner which would be fair to all parties. lie belle
the Right Hon. Gentleman had somewhat misrepre'e,
;
the intentions of Sir R. Peel upon that subject, be"-,
he remembered to have heard that Right Hon. 136 r"
say that he thought it would be most dangerous to
tempt tempt to modify the schedules. The House wotdudis
come persuades of the difficulty of such a task when ;0
remembered what opposite suggestions had been t's'
upon the matter. One gentleman had stated the ?Jot
lice of Schedule B; another bad stated the ittiestialeso
Schedule D; and his Hon. and Gallant Friend the t,O
her for Lincoln (Colonel Sihthorp) had shown the le
tics of a portion of Schedule E. But if complahlt% if
made of the injustice of the tax to all the partirso
eluded in its operation, it might so happen that Is di
not very unjust to any of them.—(Hear, hear, ore
laugh.) He would recommend Hon. Gentlemen, bedo
pi
they made up their minds that any one eebesr
shoal: be reduced, to consider what effect that ruler
tion might have on some of the other sobe-00)
which might be altered with equal or even
greater propriety. But he thought it better to I)o9i''s,
any discussion upon those points until they should 'sl
to consider the various schedules in the Bill. 001
one who had ever had to deal with the iecosi
tax had found it possible to alter the schedules.
_di
great man, Mr. Pitt, who had imposed and continev"oo
income-tax— (An HONs MEMBER here observed thateas
was in time of war]—it had been originally ins1)°,0101
time of war; but Mr. Pitt had maintained the sebe..oll
on the ground that they could not be properly or 3 0,
altered, and on that ground he had opposed se.c'ed
alteration when proposed by Mr. Addington in 1013 j,
peace. Mr. Pitt had on that occasion rested his fly
tion to the change on the grounds of its injustice all fit
the necessity of the case. He (the Chancellor Too/
Exchequer) proposed that the tax should be cent' ,{d
for three years. He thought it most desirable th6,lo#
the purpose of enabling them to make other redll°`o
of taxation, it should be continued for that period; 81301
seemed to him most inexpedient that so large an #
of taxation should depend upon an annual vole' 030
ho would not preclude the Right Hon. Gent'esol
from repealing the tax next year, if he should t?
fit, and if he should at that time be holding the Ore
which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) 8t io,
sent so unworthily filled. It would no doubt have 01'
the easier course for him to have simply proposeds if
the tax should be renewed for a single year; I'o
did not think that, with his opinions upon the 61140
it would have been honest on his part to have.; bet
that course. The Right Hon. Gentleman had Salui,oolo
if the tax were to be continued for three years it 601101'
necessarily be extended to Ireland. But he (the v li
cellor of the Exchequer) said directly the reverse' 10
did not at that moment remember what were the 10,11
grounds on which Sir Robert Peel in introdueo,oooo
tax had stated that Ireland ought to be exeroptetbich,
its operation; but he felt assured that any reason "00
' could then have been urged for such a course 0,1100,
still more strongly at present. Ireland had not "b 0
gone through the fearful calamity by which Of 00
since been visited ; property in Ireland had 110',0111'
been depreciated iu value; and the owners and "a
vators of the soil in Ireland had not then been reF'O4ol
ing from a pressure unexampled in modern timeel of
country in the world. It would, therefore, be erne ods
unjust to attempt to impose at present upon Irelfie
tax from which she had then bush exempted. Mog;
Gentleman had said the other night that he (the 001/
' cellor of the Exchequer) would perpetuate the neetticlei
for the income-tax by removing the duties fromer",so
of consumption. But he did net propose to take : tlri
any such duties. He merely proposed to reclu°iot#
duties on three articles; and he believed that after • dio
reductions the revenue to be derived from them wotliciLirlicil
revive. He proposed to reduce the duty on coffeetwt it°
he believed would reach its former, amount ileuet; fe;
change. The tax on timber would, he believed, et,„'"?'
vive under the reduction of duty which he PrWirso
And although the amount he proposed to remove 04,
the duty on windows and houses was, to a certain es,
a total loss, it should be remembered that the earlPr
house tax would be a continually increasing tax.
body was aware how greatly the number of houee°oo
being increased in the neighbourhood of all great toe'd
and cities, and must ate that a tax on houses Wovp,llool
cesserily go on augmenting from year to year.
.1-s, ii'
that he could fairly be accused of sacrificing fie'
revenue, and rendering the continuance of the iect-tdo
tax unavoidable, by the manner in which he proPt*o if
deal with the duties on articles of consumption; 9100
said, on the contrary, that Hon. Gentlemen opposite s VI!,
themselves open to that charge. Let them look to tuAttty
great articles with the duties on which he propese'dil
they should deal. The first proposal he made was a red J,
tion of the almost prohibitive duty on foreign elitsh
He had objected in the year 1845 to the mode in „gsf
the late Sir R. Peel hag at that time dealt with the,910%
duties. He had pointed out the fact that by red!" so
the duty on colonial sugar, and increasing the druSte
foreign sugar, the Right Hon. Baronet was suerifisai:stf
certain amount of revenue without any chance or ;to
seeing it restored, and that that was, in fact, the °ill f
PI
obtain a minimum of revenue, because the absence° o
reign competition would prevent a reduction of prreVe
an increase of consumption, But he should add lit
although he objected to that proposal of Sir R. -'" Si'
the year 1845, the Right, Bon. Baronet had, in 1211:00,
nion, amply redeemed that temporary error, and °,4
hoe who knew what had since occurred upon thatiiie
ject must be aware of the infinite difficulties with Yin'
the Right lion. Baronet had had to contend. Loa ve
at the whole commercial policy of Sir R. Peel, he 11%01
hesitation in expressing his firm belief that it was ails
tied to the most cordial approbation. The sugar "t-tlO
had been altered in the year 1846; and the effect of
e 1
alteration had been a considerable increase in 0° eV
flue during the following year. That was a csse o'o,
renewal of a duty; and he had no doubt as#
that it the Act of 1846 had been left unclop;,iet,
the revenue derived from sugar would be far greilio",
than it was at the present moment. 13°' 9"
Act had been altered in consequence of the 11;01?'
of a Committee, of which the late Lord Georgeool,'
tinck had been either the chairman, or at least a J,): (let
nent member; and in deference to the expressou 0 iti-
nions of that Committee he had felt himself bound $ if
troduce the Sugar Bill of 1848, by which the dutl°—,,, tt',
lonial sugar was reduced, and the protection thtl. eos,
colonial interest was still farther extended. lie di'slte{
repent of that measure, he believed it to have WF,,I) ',„
remarkably well; and ho found that the consuntc3.,,,';;lo::
sugar had increased by not leas than 50 per cent- `',Porlit'
the last six years. But that measure necessaril Y b i''
poned the time at which the revenue would re A% 017;
former amount; and fur that result Hon. Gentlet sfeea
posite were at least as much answerable as he was;/e Oh,
had happened, again, in the case of stamps? 'of tv(i
proposed a reduction of one-eighth in stansfSe li%
lowest amount, and then that the duty should b. ) nor
t 0)
up umfornaly on the ad valorem principle. Pli.,sotato
Gentlemen opposite said that, although they , 0 PrAre.7,-
of that principle, they would ot allow him to r wed pry,:
large an amount of revenue as that which he :b;itsti%
posed; and there had accordingly been a di I-19* the;
of the revenue which contributed to prey. 1.0 taper
from taking off the income-tax. Then, age ill', viler
had ben a proposal for a total repeal of t. if° lt
duties. The Hon. Gentleman the Mew ,b°,-.001,1
Buckinghamshire had on that occasion el c'gsrotylt
supported that proposal; and how, therefore, I 113„roact,
ask, could the Hon. Gentleman or his party r f[tt w",
him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) "Ig 009,
undue reduction of taxation, after he had hia" '700t49°
ported a proposal for the total repeal of a tax a.aht